Floor Statements

Pleasure. Same here, my good friend. I would also like to just make a couple of opening comments before we get into the nuts and bolts, into the meat of the issue here.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who every now and again I join down here doing an Iraq Watch or something on the veterans, he and I held a townhall meeting in Youngstown, Ohio, last week. And we had chairs set up for about 125 people. And the room was packed with 200 people. We had to turn people away at the local library, Boardman Public Library.

It was just amazing because of the amount of concern regarding this issue and how many people want to try to understand what the President's plan is. And as you put it a couple of weeks ago when we were here, we really do not have any of these details. And we do not know exactly what the President's plan is. And he is talking in these very broad concepts, because once you get down to the nuts and bolts of implementation of the privatization accounts, it gets very, very hairy and very, very scary.

And one of the main concerns at the townhall meeting in Youngstown was the concern of having to borrow money to try to implement this system. And when you look at what we have here, and average people understand this, we are running close to a $500 billion deficit just this year. And so we have to go out and we have to borrow that money, and we are borrowing it primarily from the Japanese and the Chinese, which puts our country in a position of weakness.

The one thing the President has said that he wants to for sure do is he wants to have these private accounts, the side accounts. So instead of putting money into the Social Security trust fund, you would put it in this private savings account.

Because the money is getting diverted into the accounts, and we want the current beneficiaries of the program to get what they deserve, we have got to go out over the next 10 years, the first 10 years out from this plan, and we have to borrow $1.4 trillion just to cover the cost of the transition in the first 10 years.

Yes, certainly. I said that $1.4 trillion must be borrowed in the first 10 years of implementation of a Social Security reform package that includes the private accounts. And, again, I am 31, the gentleman from Florida is 30----

Something. And the money we do pay in, because Members of Congress do pay into the Social Security system, the 6.2 percent that we are putting in now that goes into the trust funds, the President is saying we will be able to take maybe all of that, maybe a portion of that and put it in a side account. In order to make up the difference, so that our grandparents and parents can get what they have put into Social Security and they get the full benefits, we have to borrow $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. But the massive figure is $5 trillion over the next 20 years.

Now, that is $5 trillion we have to go out and borrow and pay interest on, which I think is probably the best argument for not doing this. We should not implement a program that is going to strap our generation with massive tax increases to pay for this, the $5 trillion, the interest on the $5 trillion, and then end up with a benefit that is not guaranteed. I think when you add all that together, it is a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Speaker, that is a phenomenal outline of a consistent approach on what the plan was, has been, continued to be and now getting closer to try to implement. I think it is an ideological bent that is pushing us because as the gentleman said, we are going to have to go out and borrow the money. I think it is important that we mention what happens when the public side is out in the market borrowing money. The more money we are borrowing, there is less money to be borrowed by private interests which will drive up interest rates because there will be less money out there because we have to keep going out there and borrowing it for our own purposes, whether it is Social Security or running a deficit of $500 billion. That means increased interest rates, for those at home, who want to go out and get a car, get a house, want to go out and borrow some money for whatever reason, interest rates are going to rise if we keep going down the path we are on right now.

One other comment I wanted to make that the gentleman brought up, the administration is trying to say crisis, crisis, crisis. The sky is going to

fall in if we do not do something immediately. They used the word ``bankrupt.'' I think the President used the word in the State of the Union address. I am almost positive.

He said bankrupt. To me bankrupt means there is nothing in the bank. It is belly up, zero. That is how I interpret bankruptcy. Nothing left.

The problem is Social Security will never, ever, ever, go bankrupt because there will always be workers putting money into the system. Now it may not be, if we stay like we are now, it may not always be at the levels we want. Down the line, it may only pay 80 percent of the benefits, but there will always be money in the Social Security system so it will never be bankrupt.

So when the President says bankrupt, he is misleading the public because the gentleman from Florida and I will be paying in for the next 30 some years into the program. So even if you and I are just paying in, it is not bankrupt. It may not have enough funds, but it is not bankrupt.

It is not a good way to run the government. Although a person may be able to get away with it longer and file personal bankruptcy without the ramifications to society as opposed to privatizing Social Security.

I think that is a telling point and I appreciate her sharing that story because I will use it to further make a point on this. What we have to realize is that this is a program that helps a lot of people, too. It is not just the 70 percent of the program that goes to the retirees. This also has survivorship benefits in it. It also helps people who are disabled, blind, deaf, whatever the situation may be. This is something that brings a lot more value to our society than just the numbers that we put up on boards here in the House Chamber. There is more to this whole deal here than just money. This is about helping people and this was about bringing dignity to people so that they would not have to work until they died. It lifts seniors out of poverty. All our parents and grandparents recognize that. I think if the President says, like he said, 55 and over, you are fine, you are all right, which implies that if you are 55 and under, you better look out because we are not sure what is going to happen. If we really wanted to help kids, students right now, and that is sometimes how he pitches this, hey, these young people would be able to go save in a private account. If you really want to help these college students, increase the Pell grant more than $100 a year for the next 5 years. Let us help these kids reduce their college debt. They are graduating from college on average with about a $20,000 debt already which takes away from our national savings. Why do we not help them with that, as long as they put the money into some kind of long-term pension fund for themselves? There are ways we could get creative here and do this, but to say to dismantle the greatest social program in the history of mankind, I think is pretty foolish. The gentleman from Florida looks as if he has something very important to say.

How many people in poverty? Did the gentleman say that?

So they would be in poverty if it was not for Social Security?

So what is your philosophy on life when you say that you are okay with those people going back into poverty?

I did not say you were okay. I know the gentleman is not okay with that.

I do not even think that counts the war.

We want to be a part of this. I do not want anyone at home sitting there listening to us to think that we do not want to be a part of solving this problem. Not crisis. Problem. Long-term problem. We all have long-term problems. My family has heart disease. I have a long-term heart disease problem, long-term.

We all have problems. I think this shows really where we are at philosophically, too. I have a school district, Youngstown city school district, over 50 percent of the kids in that school district live in poverty. Seventy percent qualify for free and reduced lunch. That to me is a crisis, immediate, needs to be addressed. Cuts in Medicaid and food stamps, that is a crisis. We need to fix that now. This is long-term.

There are a couple of points I want to make. Let me get to this chart here. This is the U.S. trade deficit with China. This is the country we are borrowing all this money from. It is about $163 billion, maybe a $165 billion trade deficit. We are buying more than we are selling. I just want to show this because I think as we look at the big picture with the $420 billion or $430 billion annual trade deficit, this is all U.S. investment going over to China.

A lot of these job that were in the United States are now in China. Fewer people paying that 6.2 percent into the system, which would certainly help, as opposed to making 8 bucks an hour. The good high- wage jobs that were 18, 20, 25 bucks an hour, 6.2 percent of 25 bucks an hour is a lot more than 6.2 percent of 8 bucks an hour, which is the rate we pay in. So I just wanted to put this up to give everybody some perspective.

And we talked about Alan Greenspan and his testimony. I just want to read a paragraph from Bloomberg News. It is pretty interesting: ``Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's testimony yesterday before the Senate Banking Committee,'' a couple weeks ago, ``undermined virtually all of the Bush administration's arguments for diverting some Social Security tax payments to fund private retirement accounts. If the hole left in Social Security finances by the diversion were filled by added government borrowing, as proposed by President Bush, creating the private accounts would not add to national savings, and for Greenspan national savings is the overriding long-term retirement issue facing the Nation.'' Greenspan says we need more national savings. The administration's plan is borrow $5 trillion. Two complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment on the AARP. These attack ads, the same consultant groups that attacked Presidential candidate Kerry, the same groups that did the Swift Boat ads are now attacking AARP, and they are saying that AARP is for gay marriage and against the troops. And the reason I want to comment on that is because their reference is to the Ohio AARP chapter, which was against an issue that was on the ballot in Ohio, and I believe it was Issue 1. The issue was to ban gay marriage, but it was written so broadly that it eliminated civil unions between men and women who were older, who were senior citizens. And I have people in my district, friends of mine, who were married and their spouses passed away and they were senior citizens and they were 70-something-years-old and they had families on both sides and kids and grandkids. They did not want to get married, but they wanted a legal binding contract. So the AARP, obviously, was against that because it took away the civil unions for senior citizens. Now all of a sudden here come the attack ads against AARP just to try to slam them because they are not for the President's proposal.

So I just wanted to clarify that to the folks in Ohio. That is why AARP was against Issue 1 because it is eliminating the ability for two human beings, American citizens, to write a contract between each other, man and woman, a contract not allowed in Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I hope we continue this discussion. It is nice because it is not a 30-second ad. We can actually talk about the facts and get into a little more discussion.

I want to do this before we go. If there are any 30-somethings or 40- somethings or 20-somethings or anyone out there who wants to e-mail us, it is [email protected], or they can get us on our Web site democraticleader.house.gov/30something, but they can send us an e- mail if they have any comments or stories that they want us to share, and we will pick a few next week and maybe read them on the House floor here.

But I think it is important that we recognize that this is long term and bad for our generation for all the reasons that we stated and I think most significantly $5 trillion that we have to borrow primarily from the Chinese.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to honor the words of John Jackson, a steelworker from Warren, Ohio. I am proud to claim him as my constituent.

I Am an American Steel Mill

I was born over 100 years ago.

I am a true American.

I survived the depression.

I have lived through wars.

I sweated.

I poured ton after ton out of you.

When called upon I answered.

At wartime I served my country.

I served it true.

I worked 24 hours a day 7 days a week for you.

Never stopping, never slowing down.

Never asking for anything in return.

I have supplied you with the materials to build

Planes, trains, ships, cars, and whatever you asked of me.

I have helped make you the super power that you are.

I have made you feel proud, safe, secure, and superior to

other nations.

I have given people their way of life.

I have taken away life from people.

Do You Know Who I Am?

I Am an American Steel Mill

I have helped you when called upon,

I have supported you though good times

And bad times.

Now I am asking you this great

country of ours

Think what life would be like if I die

Think how safe, proud, secure you would feel if I die.

The cries for help are all across the country.

The same country I helped build.

The same country I helped become strong.

Please don't let me die.

Serve me as I have served you.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me, and I would like to say how much I enjoy this as well.

And those of us who ran for these positions and had to ask 700,000 American citizens to give us their blessing to come here and represent them, there is nothing better than having a vigorous, honest debate about an issue that faces the whole country and do it in a way that is not personal. I am sure the President in many ways thinks that his plan is the best plan, and we in many ways think it is not and in the long term it will end up hurting many of these 48 million people, the 48 million people that this program lifts out of poverty.

I would like to take this opportunity tonight here in Congress to talk a little bit about the situation that the country is in right now. I do not think we can have this Social Security debate in a vacuum, just saying here is the little program and it has no effect on anything else that is going on around it. So we have some charts here that many of our colleagues have been using, and I think they are going to be very important to impress upon the American people exactly where we are fiscally in the United States of America. So I have this chart here that talks about the deficit that we are in, and then we will get into the plan later, and we will discuss the different approaches.

The blueprint.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate the gentleman's passion on the issue, and I think he is absolutely right. There is not a plan.

Basically what we are talking about and what the President last hinted for sure is he wants private accounts. He has made that perfectly clear. He has made it clear that privatization, throughout his career, since the time he ran for Congress in the seventies, he has been advocating these kinds of plans, where the private accounts go. Somehow, through a lot of fuzzy machinations, he figures out a way to say that will somehow shore up the system.

What I want to do is basically paint the picture of where we are now, because you cannot say we are going to implement this ``option two'' of the commission's plan or the blueprint that the President has insinuated or indicated portions of. But we know he is for the private accounts, and many on the other side are for the private accounts as well. But we cannot just do it.

My point is this: Here is a graph of the annual deficit that we have in the United States of America as of 2004. Now, the debt is the overall deficits all

added up over time. We just raised the debt ceiling last year, I think it is over $8 trillion. Or the majority did. They raised the debt ceiling to $8 trillion. But here is what is basically happening.

Here in 1989, we had a deficit in 1989 of about $153 billion for that year. It continued to slide. You remember President Bush-1 said ``Read my lips, no new taxes,'' and then he ended up putting some taxes on and cut some spending and put some caps on some programs.

Then, in 1993, we still had in 1992 a $290 billion annual deficit. All these numbers are adding up to create our national debt.

Then the Democratic House, Democratic Senate and President Clinton in 1993 passed the budget, and it was after that budget that we started to begin to reduce the deficit. Then we had all the economic growth, 22 million new jobs because of the balanced budget, low interest rates, and we all remember what it was like in the nineties, until we got to a $236 billion surplus.

To make a long story short, since 2000-2001 with the decline, now here we are with over a $400 billion deficit for 2004; red ink as far as the eye can see. So right now we have to borrow over $400 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund, the Chinese and Japanese primarily, the same China that is cleaning our clock in manufacturing. So we are borrowing this money from the Chinese.

Now, the President's plan, and let me just show real quick, that is the deficit, this is the debt, which is all the deficits added up. In 2004, the Republican House, Senate, and President Bush raised the debt ceiling to $8 trillion, and the projection by the Congressional Budget Office is by 2014 the debt will be $13.6 trillion. That is a heck of a debt to have as a Nation, very unhealthy for our economy. So right now we are borrowing over $400 billion.

The President's proposal, what little of it we have about the private accounts, the gentleman and I, should we choose to access one of these private accounts, would take a part of the money, a percentage of the money we put into Social Security, the 6.2 percent we put in, and we will divert that over into a side account, which leaves a gaping hole for our parents and grandparents in the Social Security system.

So we have to borrow, if we do the private accounts, which the President has said he wants, $1.4 trillion, with a ``t,'' $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Because everyone has thrown their money in these side accounts, we have to plug that hole.

So we do not have, as evidenced from this chart here, we do not have the money, because we are already borrowing $400 billion. If we were in surplus we would be having a different debate right now, but we are not. We are borrowing $400 billion now. Then we are saying over the next 10 years you have to borrow another $1.4 trillion, and over the next 20 years we have to borrow $5 trillion to pay for private accounts.

We cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford to borrow $5 trillion. And if one thinks we are going to be able to run this scheme and our taxes are not going to go up, then you are missing the point. You are not being responsible to what the facts are.

What happens is as the government is going out and borrowing money in the international market from China, there is less money for the private sector to go and get, which will raise interest rates for average citizens who want to buy a house or a car.

That is kind of the background of where we are right now.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, those of us in this business and those at home obviously interested in this kind of debate and what is going on in your community and country, looking back and having all the anger and personal issues that we have today here in Washington, D.C. and in our State capitals, politics has gotten so bitter and so personal, can you imagine President Reagan and Tip O'Neil strolling out saying, ``We did it. We sucked it up for the American people and did what was best; and part of it was your idea and part was our idea; and part was conservative and part liberal. But we made it work for the American people, for the people who this program lifts out of poverty and the 48 million people that get it.''

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman more, and I think he spoke on behalf of a lot of us. I have two stacks of letters about this high over in my office from seniors. We have got 2,400 as of last week, and I have not got the update yet this week, but 2,400 letters from seniors in my district saying that they are against this proposal. They do not want their benefits cut, and one phone call that says, support the President and the President's private accounts.

But what has been amazing is on several of the letters of those 2,400 that have come in, the senior citizens will write a little note on there, and just typical of our grandparents' generation, they say, I am not worried about my benefits, but please fight to make sure that my grandkids will have Social Security when they get older.

Now, is that not typical of that generation, of the Greatest Generation who made sacrifice after sacrifice after sacrifice until this day to not worry about Social Security for them but worried about it for their grandchildren?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Just to follow up, the number of people, Social Security beneficiaries, 15 million of the 48 million recipients, 30 percent receive disability or survivor benefits. We all grew up with kids in our schools that one of their parents got killed or one of their parents had cancer and passed away at a very early age. Those kids, our friends, received benefits from the Social Security system. This is a social insurance program. This is not the mega-millions lottery system, multistate lottery system. This is a social safety net, and you do not play games with this kind of system.

You do what you did and what we did in 1983: in a bipartisan fashion sit down like adults and fix the problem and not try to destroy the system. I mean, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when I went through all these and we had a briefing today from people.

I spoke with some people today who study this and understand this system, and after hearing all the facts and after studying this for the past few months of what the President's proposal is or what little of it that we know about, we need to make sure that we save this system and protect this system. That is really what we need to do.

What an honor it is for us to be joined here by a great friend, great athlete, great baseball player on the congressional Democratic baseball team, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am sorry to interrupt. I just want to make this point.

As we run these deficits, as the gentleman from New York just stated, it is not free. We are borrowing, money and we have got to pay interest on it. The interest payments and the money that we have got to pay on our debt becomes a greater portion of the budget that we have every year here, and that is less money that we have for Pell grants, that we have for investing in the health and education and general welfare of our society in order to lift more people up, to create taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, the other point is, as my colleague so aptly put this, the up, down and the ebb and flow of the stock market. Some of the plans that are being offered from the other side say no matter what your savings account or your private account, where it is, if it is down at the bottom, you rode the wave and then you started losing money, like if you wanted to draw out your private account in 2001, in 2002 when your 401(k) was cut in half, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying it is okay, there is a guaranteed minimum benefit for you, which sounds good.

So here is a guy who, instead of paying into the Social Security system, is paying into the private accounts, and then when the private account goes belly up, the government will come back in again for the second time and bail them out with a guaranteed benefit. There are so many risky propositions here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The more cynical side of me, and being a 30-something I should not be cynical just yet, but that side of me says that this whole thing may be a big side show. While we are having this debate here and we are all focused on Social Security, we have a budget coming up here that is ugly. We have a budget that is coming up here that is going to slash food stamps and Medicaid and increase the Pell grant by $100 a year for 5 years when tuition costs have doubled.

To those listening at home, I think we need to keep our eye on a couple of these issues here. Social Security is definitely one of them, but I think it is very important we understand there is this other game going on here with the budget and how dangerous that may be for the long-term consequences of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, just to remind everyone of the e-mail real quick: [email protected]. Send us your thoughts on this.

We have a couple here: one from a Harvey Johnson from Baltimore, who says the ``issue of privatization of Social Security hits home with my mom, the age of 81, recently widowed, now lives on a total income of $1,000 a month from just Social Security. When you factor in the cost of much-needed medicine, bare essentials such as rent, utilities, and food, I still supplement her income nearly 50 percent just to make minimal ends meet. The thought of a drastic reduction in her benefit would force us to make even further tough decisions, including possibly the loss of some of her independence if she were to need to move again. Frankly, the more I hear of the President's proposals, the more upset I get.''

That is from Harvey.

Earl watched on C-SPAN last week. He wanted us to make sure to mention that the ``current system also provides disability and survivor benefits.''

Earl, we did talk about that. We took note of your e-mail here, and we did make sure we mentioned that here tonight. ``If a younger worker becomes disabled for any reason, he or she would be guaranteed a disability benefit, including benefits to their dependents.''

That is the thing. We are borrowing the money from China, and we have to compete with this great rising power in the world. And if we do not have every person on the field playing for us, we are at a disadvantage. This is also an economic argument, not even about compassion. Although some of us may feel that way, this is an economic argument. If one of your parents dies prematurely and society does not come in and step in and try to help, that is one less person on our team.

One last one here, Mr. Speaker, from Karan who says she watched the `30-Something Dems' last week and related to a lot of the topics: taxes, deficits, veterans, and said ``after watching last week's talk, I feel more at home with the Democrats and would love to know more about how to become involved.''

So we are getting people engaged in the process.

Mr. Speaker, we are moving swiftly into the Iraq Watch time, and many other Members will be down here shortly to talk about a couple of different issues, one would be the issue of Iraq that has been going on for some time in a working group here.

Congress has been talking about this issue over and over and trying to bring some awareness and some clarity to many of the people of this country who are very concerned with what is going on in Iraq. I would also like to, since we claimed the time here, I would also like to talk a little bit about the veterans and a little bit about what is going on here with the budget.

As we just talked about, and as the gentleman from New York articulated and the gentleman from Florida articulated as well, there is some real pressure being put on the budget here in the United States Congress, and I did mention it towards the end. One of the programs that is going to take a real beating here in the 2005 budget is going to be the issue of veterans.

Now, the President has made a formal request of this body for another $80 billion to help fund the Iraq war, and this will take the grand total over $300 billion that we will spend on the Iraq war. And that is just today. That is up to this point. This $80 billion may get us through the year, but some analysts say it may not. We are going to be over $300 billion in what we have spent in Iraq.

Now, there is nobody in this Chamber who will not support the troops, who need our support. Many of us have argued, and I was on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the last Congress, many of us argued vehemently that we need to fully fund veterans health care in the United States of America. If we are going to continue to say there are other priorities in the budget, or that a certain amount of people who make a certain amount of money, a lot of money, the Bill Gateses of the world, should somehow get a tax cut and that we should do it on the backs of the veterans of the United States of America, and tell them their copay is going to go from $2 to $7, $7 to $15; that their annual fees are going to be increased up to $250 if they are a category seven or eight veteran, then this is an issue that I think as much as Social Security attacks some of the fundamental concepts and promises of this country.

Is there anything more despicable than to go out and tell a veteran who has left a limb somewhere across the world that somehow he is not going to be able to get the kind of benefits he was promised? That is what is happening with the irresponsibility of the budgeteering that is going on in the United States Congress today.

We showed the deficits: $450 billion. We are out borrowing money, paying interest on it, and eating up a bigger share of the budget in years to come. And we are not challenging the top 1 percent, or people making $1 million a year or more to somehow pay their fair share, to say they do not have to on the backs of the veterans.

And no one can squirm out of this one. This is one you just cannot get away from. You can maybe talk private accounts will yield more interest and at least get people thinking, but how can you not ask people who benefit the most from the capitalistic system to pay and meet their obligation to the rest of society? Because if it were not for those people, if it were not for the veterans of the United States military, there would be no capitalistic system for anyone else to make money off of. That is the fundamental premise. So we need to make sure that we find the resources in the Congress to do it.

I would like to just take this opportunity to acknowledge the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who was the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who was a great advocate for veterans in this country and who was removed from the chairmanship of the committee because he was too strong of an advocate because he wanted more resources put in.

I live in Ohio, and a lot of those folks have moved into the State of Florida, south Florida, Miami, and they have some sun and fun; but there are a lot of veterans who have stayed in my community and who are having a lot of difficulties accessing the system. So I think it is appropriate that we are here following this debate, the generation that gave us Social Security, the generation that freed Europe, the generation that saved southeast Asia in many ways, and who created a lot of the opportunities that we have here today and set us on this path of democracy and fiscal responsibility for years to come, social justice. I think we have an opportunity to honor those folks, especially as we have more people from our generation coming back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Just as we are talking about this and all the sacrifices that are being made over there and all the questions that are coming up and what is going on, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, there are a couple of statistics that I think we need to share with the American people about the investment in our veterans, because we have to focus on the ones that are coming back and new veterans that are being created every day. I know the gentleman has been out to Walter Reed and I have been out to Walter Reed several times. There is nothing more tragic for any of us who serve in this body than to go over there and see some of these soldiers and the sacrifices that they have made for the country, and to come and look at some of what is happening here in the Congress, where our President's budget for health care programs provides only 106 million more dollars than last year, $3.5 billion less than the veterans service organizations that come here and testify before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and meet here say they need. The veterans groups, the American Legion, they are not going to come before Congress and ask for anything more than their soldiers that they served with need. And they say they need $3.5 billion more. And so when you are telling us that you are only going to increase it by $106 million in the President's budget, it is outrageous.

I yield to the fine gentleman from Ohio whom I split Mahoning County with in the great State of Ohio.

We just had an hour where we discussed Social Security and the private accounts, not to get back into it, but this many Members on the other side are willing to

borrow $5 trillion over the next 20 years to pay for the privatization plan. If you had come here and said, you know, we maybe need to borrow $3.5 billion to fully fund veterans, I think many of us on this side of the aisle would say, well, we think we should balance the budget, we probably think that there is a better way of doing it, but what a much better reason to go out and borrow money, $3.5 billion compared to $5 trillion granted, to meet the obligation that we have.

I thought it would be interesting just to show since 2001, I have these charts working tonight so I am going to do one final chart. This is the increase, funding increases since 2001. This is the percent of increase in funding. The red is defense, the lavender is homeland security, and the blue is 9/11 response, New York City, international and airline relief. This is 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001. In 2004, 69 percent of the increase in funding from this Congress went for defense, 9 percent for homeland security, and 12 percent for 9/11.

These are three priorities I think the whole Congress could agree on. But to have a 70 percent increase in the military? You are telling me we could not find $3.5 billion that could not get to Halliburton in order to fund some of this for our veterans? My point is that this is an issue of priorities. This comes down to one word, choice.

What is the choice that this Congress wants to make?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comments, and I have just got to say it is stunning. We are down here a lot and we get wrapped up and frustrated and upset about this; but I mean, when we take a step back, this is stunning what we are doing. It is absolutely stunning that we can somehow expect the American people and the veterans that are sitting at home tonight who make $22,000 a year, who struggle and many people in our community in northeast Ohio who have lost their steel jobs or their rubber jobs and have moved into the VA health, they have moved into VA health because they do not have anything else. But they made the sacrifice. When the bell rung, they were there.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just like to say that that would not be the least embarrassing thing about this war.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think if you are sitting at home listening to this debate that we are having here, the discussion we are having here, there is a real key component, and I mentioned it earlier and I think it is worth reiterating: Every major veteran's service organization is against what the President and this Congress is doing.

This is the most noble generation in the history of our country. They are fiscally conservative. They are Republicans and Democrats. They are frugal. They saved. They never had the kind of personal debt that our Nation has today, not their generation.

They are not going to ask for money just to ask for it. They need it, and they see the need with their friends, within their organizations, and they are asking for it. If you do not believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), believe all the veterans organizations that are out there sticking up for their membership. If there is anybody you should believe, it is them.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank both gentlemen tonight and just say we are willing to work with the other side to find the $3.5 billion, whether it is out of the $500 billion or $600 billion increase to the Medicare program that we just found out about, we could squeeze $3.5 billion out of that, or whether it is asking the wealthiest to help. We are willing to work with them and follow the veterans organizations and do what is right to our veterans who made the sacrifices.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back with the 30- Something hour. I think it has never been more crucial to our generation than the debate that we are having here on Social Security.

Let me first say, before I get into the Social Security debate, that I believe that Social Security is just one of the major issues that this Congress is facing and one of the main issues that our generation is facing. But while this debate is going on and while you watch the news and we are talking about Social Security or we are talking about the war in Iraq, the President has submitted his budget to Congress. And if you want to talk about generational fairness, like our good friends who were here earlier in the first special order hour, talking about generational fairness, just look at the budget that was submitted to this Congress if you want to talk about generational fairness.

We are going to increase the Pell grant by $100 a year for 5 years when tuitions all over the country have doubled over the past 4 or 5 years. That is not generational fairness. Cutting food stamps, which primarily go to children, is not generational fairness. Cutting Medicaid, which goes to poor children, is not generational fairness.

So we can have this debate, we can bring our talking points here and march the party line and say exactly what we are told to say when we come to the floor and when we go on the talk shows; and you can hear it over and over.

Our colleagues on the other side are good, not always accurate, but good. But when you hear generational fairness, think about cuts to Medicaid, think about cuts to food stamp programs, think about the miserly increase in the Pell grant program, $100 a year.

I think if we wanted to make young people a priority in the Congress of the United States, we would increase Pell grant more than $100 a year if we wanted to be fair to every generation. So while this debate is going on here with Social Security, there is this other thing happening with the budget, and I urge our friends at home to pay close attention to what is happening.

One of the gentlemen over there said that it has been 70 years since Social Security; 70 years ago Elvis was born, 70 years ago, which was my favorite, the Great Depression was here. And I thought that was kind of funny because here we are having a debate about putting the Social Security system into the stock market, and one of our colleagues is quoting how much the world has changed since the Great Depression.

Well, I am sorry, but if you had your money in the stock market, you had your Social Security in the stock market and we had another Great Depression, there would be a lot of issues that we would need to talk about. But before we get into the Social Security, I want to kind of lay a little bit of a foundation on how this whole thing works and what the generalities are of the President's proposal, because we do not know all the facts just yet.

What is happening here is, in order to run the Social Security system, the worker puts in a little over 6 percent of their wages and the employer matches that 6.2 percent, and it goes into the Social Security trust fund.

Now, what the President is saying he wants to do is for the worker to take that portion, and that portion of the 6.2 that the worker puts in is debatable as to what that side is agreeing on should happen, but they all agree that they want to put a portion of that 6.2 percent into the side private accounts that would go into the stock market.

I think on the face of it, when you hear it and you are 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 years old, it sounds like a good idea. Here is the problem we face when you do that: The money that you would normally be putting into the Social Security system, your 6.2 percent that you are now diverting over into a private account, that means that your money you are normally putting in is not going into the Social Security system for your parents or your grandparents. In other words, the system will not have the money in it to handle. So the number that is floating around just for the transition cost to go from the system we have now to the personal accounts system is $2 trillion.

Now, we are already running a $500 billion deficit this year. So we are going out and borrowing money and paying interest on it because we are spending money we do not have. Now we are saying that if we implement this Social Security program, you will have, the government will have to go out and borrow at least $2 trillion, with a ``t'', $2 trillion, from China and Japan which is where we are borrowing our money from now to fund the $500 billion. We have to go out to China and Japan and get another $2 trillion and pay interest on that.

You are going to have a tax increase because we are going to have to borrow $2 trillion in addition to the $500 billion that we are already running with our deficit this year. So there will be a tax increase in order to fund this system, the transition costs, and that is if the numbers are right, if the $2 trillion numbers are right.

Now, we know that before with the war we were told weapons of mass destruction, we were told we would be greeted as liberators, we were told that we would use the oil money for reconstruction. It will not cost the taxpayer any money. That never happened. We are $300 billion into this.

Then, with the prescription drugs, we were told it was only going to be $400 billion; then 2 months later it was $550 billion. Then we find out today $1.2 trillion is the real number.

So we do not even know if $2 trillion is the real number to do the transition costs of the system. We are borrowing money, $2 trillion, increasing taxes; and that is not enough to keep the system going.

There will also be a 40 percent benefit cut because all this money is starting to go. I am 31. If I stop putting my money in, that is less going in. My mother will have a benefit cut or people in my mom's generation will have a benefit cut of 45 to 50 percent because of that money that is not going in.

I am getting my taxes raised; we are borrowing money from China and Japan. Our benefits will be cut for my mom and her generation and my grandparents and their generation.

In addition to that, if this is not enough to convince my colleagues this is a bad proposal, the investors on Wall Street that are running your personal account, they are not going to do it for charity. They are not going to do it for free. They are going to charge, and what they charge in Chile where they have a system just like this is 20 percent.

So any benefit you may get in your personal account will be eaten up by a tax increase, by benefit cuts, and by the user fee that you are going to have to pay to the investor who is going to invest your money, all the while risking the greatest social insurance program in the history of the country.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this is really the first thing that we need to do. No matter whether we are talking about Social Security or the budget or whatever, first thing we need to do in this country is plug the hole, balance the budget immediately, and stop borrowing money from Japan and China, now. We need to do this immediately.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I think that is a tremendous point that we have overlooked, and that is why we get an hour to do this, to make all our points.

This benefit that we have now is guaranteed. It is inflation adjusted and guaranteed. No matter what, you get your benefit. I think what the gentlewoman from Florida is saying, what happens if in 2000 or 2001, when you open up your 401(k) one day, it is cut in half and you were planning on retiring and it takes another 10 years to get back to where you once were, all this risk for no real gain overall?

Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Maybe he did not send it to you.

Mr. Speaker, so we are going from a guaranteed benefit for Social Security recipients to a guaranteed payment for those Wall Street investors. No matter what happens, whether the investments or the portfolios they are negotiating go up or down, they are going to get paid, guaranteed. Why would you shift that from the beneficiaries?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right that we should have a debate about this.

To e-mail us, it is 30something [email protected].

We have some charts here that kind of play out President Bush's scenario with four younger people. The one we have here is 18-year-old Ashley. We wanted to get a woman in there. These are the benefits under current law, what Ashley would get when she retires in 2052.

Under the current benefit, she would get $1,628 if we do not do anything. Under President Bush's good blueprint, which is the best case scenario, but we have to factor in tax cuts, the 20 percent you have to give the investors, the borrowed money, everything else, the risk is probably not included in here, Ashley would get $1,099. So you are talking about a $529 difference. This is our system that we have today, and the Ponzi scheme which has been proposed. That is Ashley.

Now we have Eric. Eric is 28 years old, lives in Miami, Florida. He retires in 2042. Under current law, when Eric retires in 2042, Eric would get $1,478 a month. In 2042, under the President's best case scenario, which we call the good blueprint, Eric would get $1,098 which is a $380 difference per month, just doing the math quickly.

Clearly, under the current system, Eric at age 28, if you are listening and you are 28 and we keep things solvent, maybe make some minor adjustments to keep the system going, you get almost $1,500 a month and under President Bush's plan, $1,100 a month.

Last we have Jennifer. Jennifer is from Ohio. She is 38 years old. She retires in 2032, a little closer. Under the current law, she will get $1,343 a month. Under President Bush's scheme, $1,099. There is still a $250 a month cut because there is less money going in.

People are putting money in private accounts. There is an increase in taxes because you have to borrow $2 trillion and you have to pay your investors their 20 percent for making the deals for you. So even someone 38 years old retiring in 2032 is still going to see under President Bush's plan a cut of $250.

All we are saying is, we have a guaranteed benefit. The system is working. No one is going to hit the lottery on this system; we understand that. But it was not meant to hit the lottery. It was meant as a social insurance program. Fifty percent of the beneficiaries, if they did not get Social Security, would live in poverty; and we are going to flip this system upside down and go borrow $2 trillion from the Chinese, who are cleaning our clock economically anyway. It does not make a whole lot of sense.

Mr. Speaker, this is a real pattern of behavior. I think when we are talking to the young students out there, the 20- somethings and 30-somethings, and we look at the track record of the last 4 years, weapons of mass destruction, oil money for reconstruction, American taxpayers are not going to have to pay a dime. Mr. Wolfowitz testified $5 billion was all the Americans were going to have to pay, and now we are $300 billion in; and that we would be greeted as liberators, and on and on and on. None of that was true.

Then we went to the Medicare bill. It was $400 billion. Two months later, it was $550 billion. And today, and it is funny, if it was not so sad, it would be hilarious, $1.2 trillion. We went from $400 billion when we voted on this thing, to $1.2 trillion. So this is clearly a pattern. So when they come to us with this proposal, how are we supposed to believe them? How are the young people supposed to believe them?

I think that is it. Basically we are going to bet the ponies, and we do not have any money in our pocket, so we are going to put it on our credit card at 21 percent. We have to pay the Chinese back because they issued us the credit card. It is a dangerous game.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of House Resolution 23, honoring the contributions and academic excellence of Catholic schools. The week of January 30-February 5 has been designated ``Catholic Schools Week'' by the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to honor the educators, administrators, and over 2.5 million students at Catholic schools across the country for their continued dedication to the educational process.

Catholic Schools Week began in 1974, and has annually promoted a different theme to guide its message. The theme for this year's Catholic Schools Week is ``Faith in Every Student,'' which demonstrates parochial educators'' commitment to melding the invaluable process of learning with the guiding principles of Catholicism. And as important as the intellectual development is, it pales in comparison to the lessons of compassion and service to others.

As a beneficiary of a Catholic education, I deeply appreciate the role that the schools play. My Catholic educational experience gave me the desire to learn, the willingness to adapt, and the moral compass by which to lead. This education gave me the basis for the beliefs that continue to guide me today. Children in Catholic schools receive a good education from highly-qualified teachers and strengthen it with a daily commitment to faith, both in school and after the final bell rings.

I wish our nation's Catholic schools continued success, and pledge my support as they continue their ongoing commitment to quality education.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks today are to pay tribute to the life of my friend, McCullough Williams Jr. of Youngstown, Ohio.

Mr. Williams has long been active in service to the community. He served as Third Ward Councilman, Housing Coordinator for the City of Youngstown, and President of the Youngstown City Board of Education. He was appointed by the Governor to the State of Ohio Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers where he served as President. Mr. Williams was also a member of the National Board for Funeral Directors.

As well as being the founder of the Sterling-McCullough Williams Funeral Homes of Warren and Youngstown, and the former owner of numerous other businesses, Mr. Williams was a member of the Centenary United Methodist Church, where he served as trustee, the Roberts Deliberating Club, Youngstown State University Penguin Club, Charter Member of the Youngstown Mahoning County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Rising Sun Masonic Lodge No. 90 A&FM, Member of the National Parliamentarian Association, and Life Member of the NAACP.

Mr. Williams has been awarded the Buckeye Elks Community Service Award, the U.S. Small Business Administration Ohio Minority Advocate of the Year, the Ohio Expo Businessman of the Year, the Youngstown-Warren Regional Chamber of Commerce Outstanding Leadership Award, the Martin Luther King Jr. Recognition Award, the YWCA Man of the Year Award, NAACP Ebony Man of the Year Award, the Curbstone Coaches Hall of Fame, the Ebony Life Hall of Fame, the YSU Alumni Relations Distinguished Citizen Award, and the Ohio Governor Bob Taft Award for 50 Plus Years of Marriage and Community Service.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of attending Mr. Williams' funeral service. It was obvious to everyone who heard his family speak that McCullough Williams was an extraordinary individual who's caring and commitment to the community guided his life of service. His family is a great testament to his life. They will keep his values and passion alive. In short, our community and our country are better off because Mr. Williams lived. My prayers are with Mr. Williams and his family, and we honor his life here today.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks today are to pay tribute to the Warren G. Harding High School ``Raider'' Marching Band from Warren, Ohio.

On November 25th, Thanksgiving Day, 2004, the ``Raider'' Marching Band represented Ohio's 17th District as it marched down Broadway in midtown Manhattan during the 78th Annual Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. The ``Raider'' Band was one out of 10 bands to be selected nationwide out of approximately 500 applicants annually. With 201 members strong, the band played ``On Broadway'' as it stopped in Herald Square to showcase its talent for the millions of onlookers and viewers at home. The event was aired live on NBC Thanksgiving Day.

Lynn G. Marlin is the Director of Bands at Warren G. Harding High School. A graduate from the Youngstown State University's Dana School of Music in Youngstown, Ohio, and Marygrove College in Detroit, she has been leading and instructing the band for 10 years and has been teaching for 30 years. Richard J. Rollo is the assistant Director of the Bands and also the head of the jazz department where he has been teaching for 22 years. He is an alumnus of Youngstown State University and Vandercook College of Music in Chicago. The percussion instructor is Mr. Kevin Kifer, majorette instructors are Nicole Horner and Amy Namola, and the ``Raider'' flag line instructors are Erika Campolito and Nikki Wynn.

In addition to outstanding musical accomplishment, the ``Raider'' Marching Band shows great strides toward high academic achievement. This year's winner of the Bob Hope/Macy's Foundation Band Scholarship is Aaron Baer, a senior at Warren G. Harding High School. Each band in the parade selected one student who best represented all of the great qualities of Bob Hope including leadership, musical talent, humor, and activeness in community service. Mr. Baer was selected by the ``Raider'' band and represented Warren G. Harding in the scholarship competition, winning a $5,000 scholarship based on an essay he submitted. The Bob Hope/Macy's Foundation also donated $5,000 to the ``Raider'' Band.

Students who participated in the 78th Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade:

Tanasha Alexander, Noora Alie, Alicia Allen, Ariel Austin, Aaron Baer, Doug Baker, Beth Balas, Loryn Baldwin, Desa Banish, Kristen Banks, Ashlee Barksdale, Sarah Beitzel, Terrance Belser, Tern Belser, Taryn Benson, Jessica Benson, Amy Binko, Leracia Blalock, Joanna Bland, Rheadus Bland, Carin Boros, Frank Bosak, Daniel Bozek, Shala Brantley, Jazzmon Britton, Tim Brogdon, Jessica Brown, LaSheana Brown, Ashley Browning, Jessica Browning, James Brutz, Jordan Butler, Brittany Caimona, Vicki Capranica, Monique Carducci, Christopher Cargill, Justin Cargill, Samuel Carr, Jamie Carter, Meghan Caswell, Brieanna Catheline, Megan Chambers, Ryan Chambers, Stephen Chappell, Daniel Clever, Joey Cluckey, Bethany Clucky, Ashley Coleman, Kendra Coleman, Lamar Coleman, Angela Collazo, Amanda Comanescu, Chelsea Comanescu, Greg Dailey, Avery Danage, Zack Darno, James Davis, Matthew Davis, Dominique DeSanti, Savontae Diggs, Brittany Dowe, Stephen Drake, Dennis Drummond, Chris Dudley, Elissa Dukes, Matthew Dukes, Shani Dukes, Jessica Dunewood, Marcella Economos, Dillon Fishel, Megan Fishel, Gina Fisher, Meranda Gedded, Alycia Geddes, Gerry Gianoutos, Lindsey Glenn, Rickisha Goliday, Ciearra Grubbs, Autumn Hall, Chasity Hall, Patricia Hampton, Aron Hamrick, Courtney Harrel, Brian Harris, Krystyne Harris, Pasha Harris, Wil Harris, Mandy Hawkins, Camille Heller, Jordan Hice, Stephanie Horkey, Alicia Howard, Kaitlynne Hummel, Mark Hummell, Sara Hummell, Brittany Jackson, Jeremy Johnson, Tiara Jones, Alysha Joseph, Brittany Joseph, Tommy Kearns, Janelle Kellar, Brandon Kingery, Angela Knepper, Deanna Kuzenko, Justin Kuptz, Caritta Lewis, Amanda Lichty, Alexandria Limperos, Ebony Liptrot, Ricky Logan, Victoria Lopez, Ray Marchek, Thomas Mason, Jasmine Mauzy, Kellie McAllister, Tyecchia McBride, Marc McCarty, Brittany McDaniel, Jessica McDougal, Robert McIver, Meghan Mckenzie, Tabbitha Merten, Kiera Moore, Tonya Mocella, Sarah Moreton, Elizabeth Mosly, Donald Motley, Justin Mullet, Tabbitha Murphy, Vinitra Murray, Tzoulie Niforos, Nicole Oller, Ayla Oliver, Caullen Owens, Anna Patsy, Gino Pennachio, Kristie Perricellia, Justin Peters, Brittany Phillips, Josh Phillips, Christina Pingley, Tori Piper, Keisha Pugh, Robert Ragland, Adam Reed, Sarah Riffle, Cory Rihel, Andy Rodgers, Melissa Rodriguez, Tiyauna Rudd, Megan Rupert, Rashanna Russ, Samantha Schaab, Michelle Seawood; Melissa Seawood, Charles Seay, Sophia Sebben, Krysta Simpson, Kelly Smith, Kayla Sparks, Sara Stainislaw, Brittany Stargell, Rachel Starr, Angela Stawiski, Anne Stewart, Erin Straniak, Maureen Sweet, Caleb Tatebe, Kiwanna Taylor, Michael Thomas, Kaycee Thompson, Matt Thompson, Carrie Turner, Rochelle Vinson, Alexandria Walker, Greg Walker, Jacque Walker, Dan Westover, Cara White, Gary White, Carie Whoreton, Daivon Williams, David Wilson, Alyssa Wolcott, Peter Wyndam, Tiffany Wynn, Yang Xu, Collin Yarnel, Mark Yauger II, Annette York, Christopher Younger.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate James R. ``Dick'' Adgate of Warren, Ohio for receiving Ohio's Outstanding Older Worker Award.

Mr. Adgate was born in 1921. He started working in the 1930's during the Depression at his father's greenhouse where he grew cut flowers and sold them to retail florists in the city. He liked the business but wanted to be on the retail side, so his father built a small shop, Elm Road Florist, in front of the greenhouse. From these beginnings, Mr. Adgate's business grew until he owned and operated, with the help of his wife Betty, a chain of stores throughout the area. He retired in the early 1990's. Soon after he retired, increased competition and changes in the client base made it difficult for the floral shop to compete. Mr. Adgate came out of retirement and took over the business again, working to make it more efficient. He continues to look for new ways to stay competitive.

Mr. Adgate is a veteran of the Coast Guard as well as a member of the Rotary Club, Old Erie Lodge No. 3F and Howland Community Church where he serves as trustee. He also volunteers for Mobile Meals, plays tennis every week, swims and square dances.

Mr. Adgate was honored by the Prime Time Awards Program, a year-long initiative to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of working seniors. The program's goal is to break down the barriers to hiring, training and retaining older workers. Nominations for Outstanding Older Worker are received from across the country and a panel of volunteers in each state selects the most distinguished honoree.

Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to extend my congratulations to Mr. Adgate. I believe that he is an inspiration for all of us and it is with great pride that I honor him for being named Ohio's Outstanding Older Worker.

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

I rise in opposition of this bill, but I would like to clarify something. We are not trying to scare kids. This President's foreign policy is what is scaring the kids of this country. And people have said today, why are people believing this? Why are people believing this big Internet hoax?

It is the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11; the same people who told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with weapons of mass destruction; the same people who told us we would be able to use the oil for reconstruction money; the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, not occupiers; the same people, the same President who told us the Taliban is gone; the same President who told us that Poland is our ally 2 days before they pull out; the same President who tells us Iraq is going just great; the same President who tells us the economy is going just great; the same people who told us the tax cuts were going to create millions of jobs; the same people who told us that the Medicare program only cost $400 billion when it really cost $540 billion.

So please forgive us for believing what you are saying. Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you are saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people or that has been told to these college students has been true. Not one thing. Bremer says we need more troops. The Pentagon says we need more troops, and this President cannot get them from the international community. There is only one option left. Let us be honest with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting time in the past couple of years. I have come to this floor on many occasions to talk about what is happening in Afghanistan. The truth and the reality I think is becoming more apparent to all of us as American citizens; and as the Presidential debates and the Presidential contest and the election of this year coming up in the next few weeks is coming to a close, this issue is becoming more and more relevant.

I think it is becoming more and more relevant, Mr. Speaker, because it illustrates that the foreign policy of the United States of America has attention deficit disorder.

After 9/11, in which we were attacked by Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, housed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, an international coalition went to Afghanistan and said to the world that we are together in the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, several months after that, the United States, pretty much by itself, even though the President said the other night, well, we have Poland with us; well, now Poland is withdrawing its troops and its support from the battle in Iraq.

So we shift our focus from the battle in Afghanistan, and the international coalition that we had, to Iraq. The satellites that were focused on Afghanistan trying to find Osama bin Laden, trying to find exactly what was going on with the drug trade and opium production in Afghanistan, the satellites turned and began to face Iraq. Troops that we had in Afghanistan went to Iraq. Interrogators that we had in Afghanistan went to Iraq. Funding that should have gone to Afghanistan went to Iraq.

Now, the President said several weeks ago that the Taliban is gone, that the Taliban does not exist anymore. That is completely and utterly false. The Taliban is still in existence. They are still fomenting problems in Afghanistan. They are still controlling some of the attacks that are going on in Afghanistan. And the quotes in today's paper were saying, a quote from a high-ranking official in the Taliban, the quote was, we are going to kill anyone who goes and tries to vote in Afghanistan elections, anyone who wants to run for office in Afghanistan, and anyone who would otherwise participate in the elections in Afghanistan. Why? Because Karzai is a puppet to the United States of America.

We have 17,000 troops in Afghanistan. We have 130,000 troops in Iraq. We cannot find Osama bin Laden. And today in the newspapers all over the country, stated from Afghanistan officials who are working with the United States, United States officials, that the trail to Osama bin Laden is cold. Cold. We have nowhere to go, we have nowhere to look; we do not know where he is. We dropped the ball, we outsourced the project to people in Afghanistan instead of giving it to the best, most highly trained, highly skilled units in the world, because we have attention deficit disorder, because we had to go to Iraq, we had to drop $200 billion, and everything this administration said to us before the war has proven not to be true.

We are going to be able to use the oil in Iraq for reconstruction: not true. We have spent $200 billion; the taxpayer has spent funding this debacle in Iraq. We were told we were going to be greeted as liberators. Now we are greeted as occupiers. It has gotten so bad in Iraq, the Italians are now paying $1 million to get hostages back. So the Italians are paying $1 million to the insurgents in Iraq to fund the insurgents against us. It is ridiculous. This has been a debacle from the get-go, and it is time we square things around before we have a narco-state in Afghanistan on our hands.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) where he talked about what this Congress has been doing. I think we also should be afraid of what this Congress is not doing. I would like to talk this evening for just a few minutes about an Inspector General's report which has been issued that looked at the behavior of the FBI and their translation of intelligence tapes that they were gathering since September 11.

Now, we found out on September 10, 2001, the day before the horrendous attacks in New York and Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, that a couple of conversations that were intercepted by the National Security Agency had a couple of messages. One said ``Tomorrow is zero hour.'' Another said, ``The match is about to begin.''

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that these messages were not translated into English to be analyzed by the FBI until several days later. So this Congress and this President decided to slightly increase the funding for interpreters and linguists to be able to help gather some of this information because if we were able to gather the information and translate it, we would know what the enemy was thinking.

So the FBI Inspector General did a report analyzing where we are today, several years later. Checked us out. Mr. Speaker, 120,000 hours of tape, of potentially valuable terrorism-related

recordings, have not yet been translated. Now potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings means languages associated with terrorism, 120,000 hours not even looked at.

A computer, several computers, supposedly systematically erased some of al Qaeda's recordings. We are erasing them before we even look at them. There is 500,000 hours for all languages not yet translated. That is 30 percent, and 20 percent of the total of the 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings.

The rule at the FBI is that audio recordings related to al Qaeda must be reviewed in 12 hours. We obviously learned from what happened on September 10 and September 11 and made this rule that within 12 hours we want all of this translated. The fact of the matter is after the IG's report, 36 percent of al Qaeda recordings were not translated within 12 hours. In fact, there are 50 cases where we missed the deadline of translation by a month.

Why is this important? Obviously because of what we learned on September 10. This President and this Congress says that the central battle, the central front on the war on terrorism was Iraq, and we are stuck in a quagmire with over 1,000 dead soldiers, thousands of wounded soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqis, innocent Iraqis. But another component of this major war on terror was that we were going to overhaul governmental translation capabilities and we have not done it. Those of us who did not think it was a good idea to go to war were saying spend $200 billion securing our ports, securing our airports, making sure we check the cargo that is going in the planes, make sure we hire enough linguists, make sure we are translating all of these tapes. And we are not doing the job in the United States of America.

This is not brain surgery. They are communicating with each other over faxes, e-mails, telephone conversations, cell phones. Why would we not hire enough FBI agents to figure out what they are saying? Because this President had to go to war. This was not glamorous enough for this President, in the trenches, doing what it takes, day by day by day. One hundred twenty thousand hours of tapes that were not even translated. We spent $48 million trying to increase the number of people we hired, and we only hired 300 more, but we have $1.3 billion spent every week in Iraq. Our priorities are screwed up.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, and I have tried to say this when we have come before the American public, that we are not making this up. I mean, I think it has gotten so bad and so much on the wrong track in this country that if they are just sitting at home watching a bunch of Democrats up there talking, they would think they cannot possibly be telling the truth. It cannot possibly be that bad.

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. It is like a bad movie or a bad novel or we are demagoging the issues. But if the American people will take the time to not only listen to what our plan is but listen to our critique, which is, I think, is okay.

Factually based in the American discourse today, in 2004, that they will find that these are facts. We are not making this up. The studies that come out, the two newspaper articles that come out that say the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are cutting subsidies for poor people to live in the city of New York or in major cities or the banks have got their fingers in the student loans and they are making billions of dollars of money, we are not making this up. This is in newspapers every single day.

So the gentleman from New Jersey, as he goes on here, I just want the American people, again, to put in a little bit of context here that we are not just making this up, that it sounds terrible and it sounds terrible because it is, because we have an administration and a Congress that consistently and constantly try to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They always appeal to where they can raise the most amount of money from that industry at the expense of average people who need help. And if we all want to move forward in the 21st century, the government needs to be involved. And I think that is what the New Partnership for America's Future stands for.

If the gentleman will yield further, that is the issue. It is the fact that over the course of the last 2 years this Congress and this President have said we need to give trillions of dollars back to people who make more than $1 million a year. We just cannot give it away.

The downside is, we are taking it away from somewhere. It almost is a zero-sum game. We are taking it away from that senior citizen in your district and thousands of others, probably millions of others across the country, who are going to suffer because of that.

So ask yourself, as a voter in the United States of America, do you want the governmental policy of your government to be, we are going to give tax cuts to people, $100,000 or $130,000, back to someone who makes $1 million a year or more? Or are we going to have them pay their fair share of taxes, they are obviously doing well, they are making $1 million a year, and use that money to make sure that people in your community or people in my community or people in the city of New York or any major city have affordable housing?

Unfortunately, we have an administration and a Congress here, they do not understand that $70 a month means a lot to some people. $100 a month means a lot to people. We are lucky. We get paid okay. We are never going to be in that position, thank God. But there are thousands and millions of people in this country that that affects their lives. They end up going to the food bank because they do not have $70 a month or $100 a month.

When is this Congress and this President going to begin to understand there are American people that need their help? And they turn their back,

and they come to our communities and say, hey, the economy is doing great. It is doing great. So maybe someone can get a job in this great economy and pay for their grandmother's prescription drug, or that extra $70. They are just so out of touch, they are in fantasyland.

I just want to say, yes, there is a cost. The money comes from very, very wealthy people who have been given a break and have had a free ride over the last few years at the expense of those people. It is not for free.

And who are we borrowing it from? We are borrowing it from banks in Japan and banks in China.

So here we have China cleaning our clock in the manufacturing sector in the United States of America, stealing all our jobs, not paying their workers anything, no environmental regulations, no human rights, no religious freedom, all the things that this Chamber and this Capitol and this Congress hold dear, that we get a lot of speeches about now, in election time, is going to China, and we are borrowing money from them.

We are paying them interest on the money that we are borrowing from them. They take the interest and they invest it back into their state- run manufacturing businesses and steal the jobs in the United States of America. What a deal for China.

And we do not have anything. We are losing on every end, which is mortgaging the future of our kids and our grandkids. We are losing our manufacturing, we are losing good paying jobs. The jobs that are replacing the jobs we have now are $7,000 or $8,000 less than the jobs we have that we are losing. And China, which is going to be the greatest economic competitor to the United States of America, is winning.

American people, we are losing. We are making bad decisions every single day in this Chamber. This President is making bad decisions. And the kicker, the kicker, is this: that we want to deal with North Korea. This gets into the war and everything else.

We want to deal with North Korea. But we cannot deal with North Korea. And we want to deal and play tough with China with their 40 percent currency manipulation, to try to put our business at a little more of an advantage in the international marketplace.

But we cannot, because we are bogged down in a war. So instead of talking tough with China, we have to go to China and say, hey, China, can you help us with North Korea, because we just have too much political capital and money and soldiers and everything invested in the Middle East.

So instead of confronting China, we are in a position of weakness, and we have to ask China to help us with North Korea. What a bad position this administration has put us in.

I think it is exciting what we have to talk about here. I think we have outlined pretty much what the problems are and the problems we face. The beautiful thing about this system is, it is self-correcting. We have elections every 2 years. So the American people will now have a choice, and the choice to elect, hopefully, in this instance, a Democratic Chamber that has an agenda. I think that is going to be great for the future of the country.

I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey to explain what our agenda is.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was in college actually at the time of the great Contract With America, of which one of the fundamental principles was that we were going to have this balanced budget amendment. And my God, I mean, when we look at where we are today, reckless, reckless leadership, Congress spending like drunken sailors.

I am sorry. That is true. I apologize to all of the sailors out there. But clearly, there is no concern for these budget deficits that we are running, putting our country in a position of weakness with some of our foreign competitors.

So I think it is important that the American people just at least see the duplicity of some of the comments that we are getting here today, a party that was clearly for fiscal responsibility.

I have to be honest with my colleagues. When I go back home, and I live in a pretty strong Democratic area in northeast Ohio, I am running into more and more Republicans that are very, very frustrated with the behavior of the Congress and the President running these deficits, because they have always been fiscally conservative. That has been a cornerstone of the Republican Party for many years, and now, they are looking and saying, wait a minute. And here we are as Democrats trying to put in the PAYGO provisions, that if you provide tax cuts or any kind of spending increases, you have to pay for them. And I think we have evolved as a Congress over the last 10 or 15 years, and we recognize how dangerous these deficits are. But a Republican House, a Republican Senate, a Republican President, $600 billion deficit, unending war in Iraq, borrowing from Social Security, borrowing from the banks in China; very, very dangerous proposition.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this up, because I think whether we are talking about trade with China or what we are going to do, I mean, I think everyone agrees in the country on investments in education, whether it is K through 12, actually funding No Child Left Behind, which would be a nice idea, or making sure that average citizens in the United States of America have access to our colleges and universities.

I just want to share a couple of examples. Today, in one of the New York newspapers, they did an editorial. Basically, what is happening with the college students, and this just illustrates how egregious the infiltration of the money folks in this town can be, there is a provision in the Department of Education that guarantees banks a 9.5 percent return interest for a loan that they make, 9.5 percent. Well, they are now currently lending out student loans at 3.5 percent, but the government is reimbursing them for 9.5 percent. So if we do not fix this, for example, in the next 6 months, there will be $3 billion wasted that will go right to the banks. I am not making this up. This is crazy. Mr. Speaker, $3 billion that will go to the banks.

So, all we are saying on the Democratic side is that we believe that that $3 billion should be put into the Pell grants. We believe that that should be, maybe, used to actually lower the interest rates that average students would need to be paid so they would not have to pay and invest that money to increase access and opportunity for people.

How are we going to compete with China and Japan and India and all of these countries that are stealing all of our jobs if we are not willing to actually fund the education programs in the United States of America? We need more people competing. We need more entrepreneurs. We need more scientists. We need more mathematicians. We need more engineers. We need more math and science teachers. We need more people wanting to be astronauts and move the country forward in the 21st century. But if we do not invest, we are not going to see the return on that money. But we would rather give the $3 billion to the banks. Again, I am not making this up.

I do not have anything against banks. They own my house, and they own my car, so there is nothing personal here, but it is just as a policy decision, we need to spend that money in a different way, and it is the same thing with No Child Left Behind.

In Ohio alone, all of the new mandates that the No Child Left Behind Act instituted for local school districts, Ohio alone in one year, are underfunded by $1.5 billion. Now, Ohio had a provision; 75 percent of the kids needed to graduate. No Child Left Behind came in and said, you need 100 percent, so we are going to have the tutorials, the after- school programs, the summer programs, everything else; never sent the money. So, good idea, right? We want the next 25 across the finish line so that they can compete and create wealth and value in our society. Great idea. But if you do not fund the program, and you put it on the backs of the locals who do not want to vote for property tax levies as it is, where is the progress?

So, again, we are saying that, if we want to move the country forward, we have to make these kinds of investments. And to the American people who are out there, President Bush promised to increase the Pell grants when he first ran. He did not do it. He promised to fund No Child Left Behind. He did not do it. This Congress made the same kind of commitments. They did not do it. Who has flip-flopped? Who has flip-flopped?

Just to clarify, if a student defaults on a loan and takes out $10,000 worth of loans in Columbus, Ohio, or Youngstown State University, bolts town and moves to Oregon, who picks up the tab?

The government. So the bank only benefits. If they pay the loan back they make the 9.5 half percent interest when they loan it out at 3.5 and if the guy bolts town, the Government picks up the tab. Great deal.

The beautiful thing, I do not know if it is beautiful or not, but the craziness that we have operating now in the United States Congress. We have a thousand kids dead in Iraq. We have thousands upon thousands of kids that we have probably all visited up at Walter Reed that are injured. We have 1.5 million kids moving into poverty. We have 5 million more people that are uninsured. We have subsidies for housing getting cut, so poor people cannot afford their rent any more. We have Medicaid going up. We have no cost controls for the prescription drugs. We have a million kids that will not, or 250,000 college eligible kids that will not, go to college because they cannot afford it. We have the Pell grant that is 40 percent of what it was when it started in the 1970s; and tomorrow we are voting on the Pledge Protection Act, to protect the pledge.

Now, we know it is the end of the session. Whether you are for it or against it, we know it is not going anywhere. The Senate is not going to take it up. It is divisive. It is a reason not to vote on anything of major policy substance in this Congress.

The Democrats have a plan that is going to move the country forward. My colleagues are out campaigning too. People are tired of the politics. The divisive issues that we bring forth today, we do not want to talk about student loans, because then we cannot raise money from the banks. We do not want to talk about Medicare costs because then we cannot raise money from the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. So what do we talk about? The Pledge of Allegiance.

What is going on? If you are sitting at home and you lost your job and you cannot send your kid to school and tuition is going up and there is a local property tax on for your local school district, there is a mental health tax on, there is a tax on for your police and fire because we have cut the COPS program and the Congress is talking about the Pledge Protection Act?

How disconnected are we?

I think when you talk about accountability and the future of our kids, one of the issues I want to touch on briefly is the issue of security which ties into what the gentleman was talking about before with really all of these issues, accountability, community, national security.

Two cops in a town that I represent, the city of Warren, Ohio, will be eliminated because of the cuts that this administration and this Congress have passed through the COPS program and through HUD, two cops in a town of 48,000 people that has four cops on patrol at midnight on a Saturday night.

Who is making us more safe? Certainly not the policies of this administration, checking one container out of every 50 that comes into the ports of the United States, which I do not have to explain to the gentleman here or the gentleman here or me, Ohio, even. What are we doing?

I mean, Senator Kerry may not have phrased it properly that we want to fight a different war or a more sensitive war, but we are not fighting World War II anymore. This is an intelligence war where you can make a bomb that fits into a briefcase that can blow up millions of people.

So the American people have to look very closely at the kind of policies that are coming out of this Congress right now, and we are not offering a very bright future, I do not think. And I am not a pessimistic person; I am probably more optimistic in most instances than I probably should be. But we are not doing things right now, and there is a critical, critical, critical election coming up here that defines that the two parties are clearly in different positions: tax cuts, spending $600 billion more than you are taking in, jeopardizing the future of the country; outsourcing jobs; and trying to say that this war in Iraq, which is the central front of the war on terrorism that we are losing is somehow making us safer; or the Democrats that are saying, let us take care of the United States of America, fund the education programs, fund cops, firefighters, port security, national security, homeland security, get these troops back home as soon as possible and make sure that we are investing in education and health care so our kids and grandkids can have a bright future to create this new economy that we do not know what it is going to be yet, but we know if we educate them everything will be okay.

That is our plan, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the leadership of our caucus for providing us a message to go to the American people where they can say that Democrats get it, the Democrats have a plan.

We saw real people today in the United States Capitol that have real

issues, that need our help, and the government is here to help. Maybe sometimes we do not do everything right, but we are here to help, and I hope that we can fulfill what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wrote in here, that our actions are worthy of the aspirations of our children.