Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the Kentucky Council on Economic Education and, J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc., a Louisville-based brokerage firm, for their efforts to improve the quality of financial and economic education for elementary, middle, and high school students in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Thanks to their dedicated efforts, Kentucky led all other States in increased participation in an important educational program, the Stock Market Game, in 2005.

To help students learn fundamental economic and financial concepts and principles, the Kentucky Council on Economic Education encourages schools throughout the Commonwealth to participate in the Stock Market Game. Created in the 1970s and administered by the Foundation for Investor Education, the Stock Market Game is a 15-week curricular tool that puts students in fourth through 12th grades in the role of investors. Students are given a hypothetical $100,000 to invest in a simulated online market and must make decisions on how and where to invest their capital.

The simulated market experience that students receive via the Stock Market Game introduces them to financial markets and important economic concepts, including the sources and uses of capital and the impact inflation and recessions can have on investments. In addition to this knowledge, students learn valuable life skills, such as personal budgeting, critical thinking, and the importance of saving and investing.

Hilliard Lyons underwrites participation with a $50,000 annual gift. As a result, participation in the Stock Market Game in Kentucky rose 46 percent in 2005, the largest of any State. In all, more than 9,000 students in 220 schools in Kentucky participated in the game. At one school, Campbell County Middle School near Cincinnati, 650 students participated at once. Math teacher Faye Smith deserves congratulations for that effort.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Kentucky Council on Economic Education and Hilliard Lyons for advancing economic education. Exposing youth to the concepts and practices that undergird our economy will aid them personally and professionally. Knowing how the economy works is important to the success of our nation. I commend the Kentucky Council on Economic Education and Hilliard Lyons for their interest in and dedication to economic education, which is vital to the continued prosperity and well-being of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I speak against this amendment. You know, I think all of us want the same thing. We want to make sure that affordable housing is available to as many American families as possible.

In 1999 we changed the rules, and we made every community live by a certain number of units, not how far they could stretch those dollars. And our costs exploded. In fact, in the HUD budget the section 8 voucher program went from 33 percent of the HUD budget to over 50 percent of the HUD budget.

Now, if you believe that the Federal Government has unlimited dollars, that wouldn't worry you. But if you believe that we live in a time where we have to measure every dollar and spend it carefully, you begin to ask what we could do better. Let me reiterate. It went from 33 percent of the HUD budget to 51 percent, but it didn't include one additional voucher. Not one additional American family was able to have a voucher based on those increases in costs. And let me say that the dollars were significant, too. We increased the dollars by over 50 percent in the section 8 program, and still not one additional American family was able to be served by a section 8 voucher. The changes that we are making today are going to allow every community to take the dollars that they have and to use them more effectively and more efficiently so that we can begin to use the section 8 which are already an enormous part of our budget to serve more American families in the future. The idea is to help Americans get into the units that their family wants to get into, maybe near where

they work, maybe near where their family is that can help them watch their children, maybe into a private housing unit where the budget just makes up the difference in the voucher, so that they can live where they want and become independent American families based on the section 8, and not just the 9,000 families that we have in Louisville, Kentucky today but hopefully many more in the future due to these reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the career and service of the Reverend Bob Russell, who is retiring this month after forty years of ministry at Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Throughout his time at Southeast, Rev. Russell has worked diligently to follow his faith in God wherever it might lead him. His contribution to the Louisville community is unparalleled and his impact on individual lives is immeasurable.

As a young man in Pennsylvania, Rev. Russell dreamed of coaching high school basketball. However, life would hold a different plan for him. During his senior year of high school, he felt a call into ministry. He enrolled in a seminary, graduating from Cincinnati Bible Seminary in 1965.

On June 12, 1966, Rev. Russell delivered his first sermon as pastor of a nascent Southeast Christian Church. Only four years prior, Southeast was founded with seventy-seven charter members. At the time of Rev. Russell's arrival, the church had reached a membership of 120. Within two years of his first sermon, the church had more than doubled to nearly 300 members. On Easter Sunday 1976, the church hosted 1,000 worshippers for the first time. Fourteen years later in 1990, 10,000 people worshipped at Southeast on Easter Sunday. And the church set its current record of 29,424 on Easter weekend 2004 over the course of five services.

Rev. Russell's career is not, measured solely by explosive church growth, but by the many ways the church under his leadership has expanded to meet the needs of our community. The church reaches its community through ministries in counseling, disaster relief, and prison support, among others. The Southeast Outlook newspaper began publication in 1995. Rev. Russell can also be heard nationally on his syndicated radio program, The Living Word.

Throughout his career of four decades in ministry, Rev. Bob Russell has strived to follow his faith in God and live a life of service to the Louisville community. We as a city have been blessed to have Rev. Russell among us for so many years. His loyalty to God, his family, his church, and our city has not gone unnoticed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude for Rev. Russell and congratulate him on a lifetime in ministry and service that will continue to touch Louisville even after his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 578 concerning the Government of Romania's ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania and throughout the world. I would like to thank the Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission), Representative Chris Smith, for continuing to raise this issue of adoption as part of the Commission's human rights portfolio.

As the case in Romania has shown us, the barriers to adoption for children and families continue to be great. These barriers are cultural, political and often have deep roots in a community. While some of these barriers will continue to be difficult to cross, I believe others can be overcome succinctly as part of a continuing dialogue on child welfare between the United States and the European Union (EU) and nations such as Romania. In this particular case, I am saddened that one Member of the European Parliament can hold so much sway over a country on important child welfare issues and successfully play on the fears of a nation that is trying to become a participant in the enormous social and economic opportunities offered by the EU.

For signatories of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, including the United States, Romania and current Members of the EU, there is supposed to be a formal international and intergovernmental recognition of intercountry adoption. Intercountry adoption, as defined and treated by the Convention, is a means of offering the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family has not been found in the child's country of origin.

However, Romania turned from its obligations under the treaty when they enacted a law in 2004 effectively banning intercountry adoption and limiting any domestic adoption. Of course, it is in Romania's authority to enact such laws. But as Members of the United States Congress, acting in the best interests of our own children and as a Nation committed to fighting for all human dignity, we shall continue to advocate for the placement of children in permanent homes. Furthermore, as long as there are thousands of families in the U.S. wishing to adopt and to give a child a loving home that would otherwise not have one, I will continue to take every opportunity to explain to our counterparts abroad why this is such an important cause--for our children and for the health of our nations. There is simply no greater gift than a home and no greater support network than a family.

Meanwhile, there are currently 37,000 children in orphanages in Romania and an estimated 49,000 living in temporary arrangements, such as foster care. These numbers are staggering. This is an entire generation of young people who will not have the support of a parent to excel in school, the comfort of a family when sick or in need, and more fundamentally, the love and care essential to the development of a child.

It is not just Americans that advocate for lowering barriers to adoption. Citizens of several European countries and Israel had a number of pipeline adoption cases that were pending when the moratorium was instilled in 2001. The U.S. is also a sender country of American orphans, something that people often forget. Last December, the European Parliament voted unanimously on an amendment to their Report on the Extent of Romania 's Readiness for Accession to the European Union in favor of the completion of all the pending international adoption cases in Romania. Additionally, according to UNICEF:

For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an

appropriate alternative family environment should be sought

in preference to institutional care which should be used only

as a last resort and as a temporary measure, until the child

can return to the family environment.

I am disheartened by the actions so far of Romania in failing to complete the pipeline adoption cases which would have resulted in placing over 1,000 orphans with permanent, loving homes abroad. I hope that as we face more of these challenges and political barriers down the road which directly impact children, we will work together to get past those barriers which are artificial.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by respectfully requesting that this body continue to engage in a dialogue with our allies and colleagues abroad on the importance of adoption, both domestic and international, as a preferable alternative to institutional care.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to echo the words of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and to have an opportunity to offer H.R. 4500 which names two recently completed Centers for Disease Control buildings after two heroic and renowned women in our Nation's and in fact our world's history: Mrs. Rosa Parks of Tuskegee, Alabama; and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

In their own ways, each of these women helped to make our country and

our world more just and caring. I am sure everyone in this House is aware that Rosa Parks passed away this October, and we have since had a real chance to celebrate her life and her contribution to this Nation. Her courage and her will to do what was right will continue to be an example to all Americans and to the people of other nations who are dedicated to the cause of justice and equality.

Mrs. Parks was a seamstress in Montgomery, Alabama, when, in December, 1955, she refused to give up her seat on a city bus to a white passenger. The bus driver had her arrested for being in violation of the law, granting preferential seating to white passengers. Her subsequent trial and conviction for this act of civil disobedience sparked the Montgomery bus boycott, one of the largest and most successful mass movements against racial segregation in history. It launched Martin Luther King, Jr., as one of the organizers of the boycott, and he came to the forefront of the civil rights movement.

Rosa Parks ignited a civil rights struggle and made possible the eventual overturn of the Jim Crow laws. Over the next four decades, she reminded her fellow Americans of our ideals and our commitment to justice and equal treatment under the law.

She was a recipient of innumerable awards, including the Martin Luther King, Jr., Nonviolent Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Our country will always be indebted to her for the moral courage she showed to call on our country to live up to our ideals and promises. Senator Barack Obama said it best upon the President's signing of legislation placing a statue of Rosa Parks in Statuary Hall, ``Rosa Parks held no public office, but when the history of this country is written, her name and her legacy will be remembered long after the names of Senators and Presidents have been forgotten. So it is fitting that her legacy, her hopes, and her struggles be immortalized alongside the statues of men and women whose hearts she helped change.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill also pays homage to the life and work of Mother Teresa by naming the Global Communications Center building at the Centers for Disease Control after her.

Mother Teresa was born in Macedonia in 1910, and at an early age, she felt the calling to serve God and her fellow man and joined the Sisters of Loreto that had missions in India. While teaching high school in India, Mother Teresa witnessed the poverty outside of her convent and asked permission to devote her life and her ministries to serving the poor and the sick, bringing them medical care, education and food.

Her remarkable work helped bring comfort to people around the world that society had forgotten or neglected. The Missionaries of Charity, which she founded, carries on her work, operating schools, orphanages and houses for the poor in over 130 countries.

Mother Teresa's saintly good works received acclaim and recognition throughout the world. In 1979, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and later President Reagan awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1985.

In 1996, shortly before she died, Congress made her an honorary citizen of the United States, one of the highest honors our country can bestow on foreign nationals. I think it is particularly fitting that her name adorn CDC's Global Communications Center which will allow it to share in the legacy and mission of Mother Teresa's work by serving the world's poor and sick.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to pay tribute to these two profoundly good women who sacrificed so much so we can all live in a freer and more compassionate world. I urge every Member to support

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just say that I think that these two women served as wonderful examples of humble and effective service in this country and around the world, and naming these two buildings at CDC is something that I think all Americans would join us in believing would be an appropriate name for those buildings.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the vote on final passage of H. Res. 571, the resolution that calls for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. I strongly oppose this resolution and its underlying sentiment. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 571.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. William G. Stiglitz III, on his selection as the 101st president of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. Bill has been an important part of Louisville's business community for the past 35 years and I pause today to congratulate him on this honor.

Bill prepared for his professional career by attending Centre College, from which he graduated in 1968. Upon completion of his studies, Bill served in the U.S. Army, including 14 months in Vietnam with the 35th Engineer Battalion. In 1970, Bill joined his uncle, English Miller, at the insurance firm of Miller & Scholtz. During Bill's career in Louisville, he has been a leader in his industry and within our community. In 1987, he served as the president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Kentucky. Bill has also served as president of the Leukemia Society of Kentucky. Bill and his wife Pat have two children, Garrett and Kate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Bill on this honor. I wish him the best of luck during his term as president of the IIABA.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the recent selection of the Louisville Youth and Children's Choir to represent Kentucky and perform in the 2006 Mozart Youth Choral Festival in Salzburg and Vienna, Austria, in celebration of the 250th anniversary of Amadeus Mozart's birth. Receiving the opportunity to perform in Austria, home of the musical capital of the world, is a great honor and wonderful experience for these young musicians.

Founded in 1967 by Italio Taranta, a former Professor of Music and Choral Conductor at the University of Louisville School of Music, the Louisville Youth and Children's Choir is the city's premier children's and youth choral training program, composed of young talent throughout metropolitan Louisville representing

grades 4-12. Its repertoire has as much diversity as it has breadth, incorporating music from a broad range of cultural styles, from key classical and modern works to voice and instrumental soloist performances.

Invitation to this international music festival is a testament to the Louisville Youth and Children's Choir's passion for excellence in singing and choral performance, which has captivated audiences for nearly thirty years. Thanks in no small measure to Mr. Don Scott Carpenter, Executive Director, and Mrs. Terri E. Foster, Director of Operations, the Louisville Youth and Children's Choir will be sharing their talents with their European peers and perhaps, new musical friendships will form as a result.

Next summer, the hills will indeed be alive with the sound of music. The Louisville Youth and Children's Choir will be performing in two of the original venues where Amadeus Mozart himself performed: the Salzburg Dom (or Cathedral) and the Votivkirche (Votiv Church) in Vienna. In fact, not only did Mozart perform here but he was also employed as the Cathedral's Choral Director. In addition to visiting the many historical, artistic and cultural sites in Austria, the Louisville Youth and Children's Choir will have the great honor of performing under the co-directorship of Janos Czifra, who is the Cathedral's present Choral Director, and Dr. Z. Randall Stroope, one of America's foremost conductors and composers. I can only imagine the thrill this must be for a group of young music performers and enthusiasts.

I am incredibly proud of such a talented group of artists which, next year, will find itself immersed with the sights and sounds that inspired some of the world's greatest musical geniuses such as Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, and Strauss. Mozart mastered his first piece when he was five years old and, in time, performed before French and English royal courts. In their own special way, these young artists will be following in Mozart's footsteps when they perform in the great halls of history.

Mr. Speaker, I join the state of Kentucky in praising the Louisville Youth and Children's Choir for their persistence and hard work. I would like to offer heartfelt congratulations for this most recent honor and I wish them the very best in Austria.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted to be here with my friends and colleagues who also are very committed to strengthening Social Security to make sure that it not only is strong and a viable program for current seniors and for those of us that are the baby boomers and about to retire, but also that it is a program that is sustainable and solvent for our children and our grandchildren.

That is a big challenge for us and it is easy today to put off problems that look like they are going to be 2 years in the distance, 4 years in the distance, 10 years in the distance, 25 years in the distance, to take up just what is the most pressing challenge today; but that is a wrong strategy. That strategy leaves our country vulnerable. In this case it gets worst the longer we fail to act.

I am pleased our President has discussed this with the American people. He has been very forthright on what the challenges are, and he has shared with the American people that doing nothing is the most dangerous thing we can do when it comes to Social Security. We all know Social Security is a pay-as-you-go. Those that are currently working are paying for those that are currently retired.

It used to be that there were 16 workers in the workforce for every retiree. Later there were 10 workers in the workforce for every retiree. Today there are 3, and so that means that considerable resources, considerable dollars that current workers make have to go to sustain each retiree.

It is wonderful that we can anticipate longer lives than those who designed Social Security. In fact, it used to be that life expectancy was 62 years, and you could retire when you were 65 years. So when Social Security was first proposed and first passed, there were far more people that paid into the system than would ever think that they would get actual Social Security benefits because of the life expectancy.

To our benefit and to the quality of our life, Americans are living far longer. So we need to modernize Social Security so that we do not have two or three workers in the system supporting every retiree as they also have to support their families. We need to make sure that those in the workforce that actually make sure that Social Security is solvent, that when they retire, it is there for them. We need to act sooner rather than later because today it is still possible to deal with the Social Security surplus, to put dollars aside, to build a system that will help make the system solvent and sustainable in later years.

I have with me today one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), who is very knowledgeable about Social Security and in particular about the GROW accounts, the proposal before us right now as we consider whether we take big steps or small steps towards personal accounts that can help us bridge the gap between a system that is not sustainable and not solvent to a system that is there for our children and grandchildren.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and am eager to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for all the hard work he is doing on this issue. It takes people who are very dedicated to talk about the issue.

We know that there have been a lot of groups that have tried to scare the American people. They have tried to scare our parents and current retirees that somehow this jeopardizes the check that they currently get. And they try to scare younger workers that this is going to be something that is risky. And his courageous and understanding leadership in this to delve into an issue and to explain it in a way that the high school students that he talked to understood and had confidence in it is so important.

And I know it will not surprise him to know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) has people that are scaring seniors, the young people in his district, throwing out misinformation, trying to dissuade them from supporting these GROW accounts.

I invited him here tonight to talk about maybe some of the information, some of the fears, some of the criticisms, maybe some of the rhetoric that he is hearing and to share with us what his answers are to the people in his community and make sure that people that are listening at home tonight that maybe are hearing some of these same things, either recorded phone calls or posters around town, that they will identify with this tactic and understand that they could be reassured that this is a good plan for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just like to ask my friend from Indiana specifically about the concern that the people coming to his office have about any sort of risk as though current benefits are guaranteed and they are in place. As he said, they are not guaranteed. The fact is the Supreme Court has recognized that. More importantly, we hear people on the floor every day talking about everything is fine until 2042 and then there would be a 25 percent cut in benefits, as though that is perfectly okay for our children and grandchildren.

But I would just like to ask the gentleman what he thinks of the 1993 tax bill that raised taxes on Social Security, both the percentage that people pay, the percentage of tax, and the baseline that caused them to have to start paying this tax, if he would not call that a reduction in benefits. If previously those Social Security dollars that people got were not taxed and the portion that was, was taxed at a lower rate, in 1993 in one day, Congress changed the law to start taxing more of people's Social Security dollars at a higher rate, if that was not the government reducing their benefit.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

And I know he shares with me an eagerness to hear from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who is so knowledgeable about this issue and works on it every day and has been a remarkable spokesperson for the personal accounts, what they mean to Americans.

I am eager to hear her thoughts tonight on this also.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is really important that we talk about not only the benefits, but some of the misinformation out there, because we know that our constituents are hearing it. They are eager to figure out for themselves what the best course is, and it is important that we both not only talk about the benefits, but also the misinformation and what the answer is to that.

One of the things I wanted to ask my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), about, he was talking about some of the questions or misinformation that were raised in his district with his constituents who he expects to be in his office.

One of the things I hear all the time is that these GROW accounts, they are going to increase the deficit for our country and that is going to jeopardize sort of the solvency of the country. Can the gentleman discuss that, whether or not these accounts are going to specifically make the deficit worse.

Reclaiming my time, in fact, for years Congress has spent the Social Security surplus on other things, and it looked as though those things were all affordable because in fact it did not look like deficit spending, when in fact it was taking the Social Security surplus and diverting it to other things.

Sometimes people ask me why Congress did that. I always say, you know, if we could bring back the Congresses, if we could get Roosevelt to come back or the ghost of Roosevelt to come back, if we could bring back the Congresses in those days, or even the Congresses in the 50s and the 60s, we could ask them that question. I will bet if they looked at things through our eyes, they would think that maybe they should have put these dollars away into accounts that the American people would own and keep them away from Congress.

But all we can do is act as good stewards of the Social Security dollars that are coming in today. None of us can reach back and change what happened in the 60s and the 70s and the 80s. I think the American people understand that. They realize that it is not today's Congress that spent the Social Security surplus in the 60s, but they do expect us to do what we ought to do to make it solvent for the future.

Reclaiming my time, it is a huge amount of money. It would be a great investment in the long-term solvency of the program.

I did not know whether the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart)

might want to talk a little bit about the deficit too, because I do think that is something we are hearing a lot about, and it is very reassuring to Americans when they understand this is not more debt.

Reclaiming my time, it is really a matter of restoring the confidence of the American people that we are going to act in the best long-term interests, fiscal interests, of this country. So I thank the gentlewoman very much for her thoughts on that.

I see that now my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), is here. He has spent a lot of time talking about and studying the issue of Social Security, is very knowledgeable about it; and I am eager to hear his thoughts on this issue tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I think he raises a point that is important.

Many nights we have talked about personal savings accounts and how many of us believe that in the long run they are the best answer to solvency, to making sure that our younger workers have a system that is there for them, that gives them a good return on investment, a system where as Americans live longer they can count on these dollars in their retirement.

But that is not possible today. It is not possible for a variety of reasons. Part of it is politics, part of it is all of the scare tactics that are being used. But, more importantly, sometimes, when you have a very big, complicated problem, it is easier if you solve it in steps, and the first step that Americans seem to be asking us to do is stop making the problem worse by spending the Social Security surplus on other things other than Social Security.

I think that is very exciting. When we do that, and I am convinced we will do that, we are going to see that seniors are going to keep getting their Social Security check just like they always have; we are going to see that younger workers are going to find out each year what they have in a personal account for themselves that is going to grow. Many families, especially young families that are trying to balance children and new jobs and so forth, this may be the only savings that they have from one year to the next, and that will be reassuring. And as people understand how that works, I am convinced that the support and the interest in growing that to truly solving the Social Security system will be there.

I know that my friend, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) also has talked before about the hole we are in, if we do nothing, and why we have to deal with this problem now. I think it is important that the gentlewoman add that to the record of our discussion tonight.

Well, I am so excited. I know that the gentlewoman is on the committee that is heading this up. It is an enormous challenge and you all are doing a fabulous job. As the rest of us worry about this and study it and provide ideas, we are so grateful that the gentlewoman's committee is committed to making this happen.

Mr. Speaker, I see now that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has joined us. It is the end of a very long day, and I am so appreciative that the gentleman came down, because I know that he has worked hard on these proposals and has been committed to them. He has been here with us on other evenings as we have talked about Social Security, and we are eager to have the gentleman join us tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is a good friend. I also thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and the other Members that joined us tonight to talk about this very, very important issue.

You talk so much about the different generations. It is amazing how many people that are concerned about Social Security solvency think about this in terms of all the different generations. I often picture the generations sort of lined up, my mom and dad, my dad passed this year, but my mom. She is 82, and she is sort of up at the front of the line. And then you get back, as people age, and I am 57 and so I am back still on this side of the line of retirement, eight steps away from retirement. My children in their 30s and 20s are further behind me in the line.

And the way Social Security works is everybody in the back of the line, before they get to retirement, helps pay the retirement for those at the front of the line. The problem is the line in the back is getting shorter as the line in the front is getting longer. What GROW accounts do is allow younger workers in a sense to throw over the line some savings that will be there when they get there. It saves the people behind them in the line from having to fully fund their retirement, and it gives them the confidence that there will be a retirement savings for them.

It begins to change from of a pay-as-you-go system to a long-term funded solvent system that will take care of Americans today, Americans tomorrow, and Americans in the future, so that our whole country will be solvent and able to address the emerging challenges that are bound to emerge with each generation. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. It is a good idea for a transition to go through the GROW accounts so that we can set up a system that helps us transform Social Security from a pay-as-you-go to an invested solvent system.

I would like to thank my friends and colleagues who joined us late tonight to discuss this important issue. I look forward to working with you, and I know you do also with all the Members the Congress so that we can serve the American people in a responsible way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service of Colonel Robert A. Rowlette, Jr., Commander of the Louisville Engineer District since July 2002. Colonel Rowlette will retire from active duty with the U.S. Army on September 1st of this year, with over 26 years of dedicated service to our nation.

A native of Berea, Kentucky, Colonel Rowlette was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers upon graduation from the University of Kentucky where he earned both a Bachelors and Masters degree in Civil Engineering. During his military career, Colonel Rowlette's leadership, vision and dedication to duty have contributed significantly to the national defense, economic prosperity and quality of life for our citizens.

As Commander of the Corps of Engineers' Louisville District, Colonel Rowlette oversaw Army, Air Force and DOD military construction projects valued in excess of $350 million annually. Major military installations supported include, Fort Campbell and Fort Knox in Kentucky, Scott Air Force Base near St. Louis, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton as well as Army and Air Force Reserve facilities nationwide. Additionally, Colonel Rowlette has been responsible for comprehensive water resources and project operations in 76,000 square miles of the Ohio River watershed, providing flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and commercial navigation.

Colonel Rowlette extended his leadership well beyond the assigned missions of the Corps of Engineers by personally participating in regional events and promoting a strong partnership between Army and civilian engineers. As immediate Past President of the Society of American Military Engineers' (SAME) Kentuckiana Post, Colonel Rowlette was responsible for hosting the 2005 Joint Engineer Education and Training Conference where more than 1,200 participants came together for professional development.

Prior assignments also reflect Colonel Rowlette's commitment to military readiness and willingness to share his considerable talents for the good of others. His service as Commander of the Charleston (South Carolina) District supported our nation's vital deep-draft ports and operation of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; as Assistant Professor of Mathematics at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, he helped prepare our future Army leaders; and while serving in a variety of combat battalion assignments he helped provide the military deterrence necessary for peace.

A good neighbor and valued steward of our defense assets and natural resources, Colonel Rowlette will be remembered for his spirit of service, patriotism and dedication to our nation. On the occasion of his retirement, I wish to extend my best wishes to Colonel Rowlette, his wife Janet and their children Robert and Meredith.

Mr. Speaker, my vote on the Jones of Ohio amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Commerce and Justice Appropriations Act (H.R. 2862) was not recorded. I respectfully request the Record to show that I intended to vote ``aye'' on the Jones amendment, Rollcall vote number 256.

Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 2744. I intended to vote ``aye'' on the Blumenauer-Flake Amendment regarding payments to the Sugar Loan Program, rollcall vote number 234.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Chabot

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the philanthropic work of forty high-school students at Kentucky Country Day School in Louisville, Kentucky whose original fund-raising work on behalf of local organizations won them nationwide recognition for curriculum innovation in February 2005 by the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS). Kentucky Country Day School was one of three schools nationally to receive this prestigious honor through the Leading Edge Program run by NAIS. The Leading Edge Program was created to explore, encourage, support and reward exceptional and innovative achievement in the areas of community relations, curriculum innovation, equity and justice initiatives and technology. This award is a testament to Kentucky Country Day School's commitment to developing and enhancing the leadership skills of the youngest and brightest among us through its unique Philanthropy course.

Philanthropy is no easy endeavor. Andrew Carnegie once said, ``I resolved to stop accumulating and begin the infinitely more serious and difficult task of wise distribution.'' With a $10,000 grant, these high school students began this ``serious and difficult task'' by creating a mission statement to help define their purpose and goals for The Artemis Fund, the charitable trust which they themselves operated. As trustees, these students were faced with the challenge of raising funds through telephone solicitations and establishing rules and procedures for giving and selecting worthy causes to fund.

Since the course's inception in 2001, The Artemis Fund has dispensed just over $19,000 to local organizations. This year, among the recipients chosen by The Artemis Fund were The Deaf Oral School and Youth Alive, a western Louisville after-school reading program.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most exciting things for me to see is the building up of our youth through positive and enriching programs that last far longer than the prescribed semester. Life-impacting education serves as a bedrock for creative ideas that one day will be used to transform the way we, as a society, interact and live. I am proud to know that these students have learned more than how to accumulate and dispense funds. Indeed, they have learned to lead by example and commitment, following through on their stated goals. This opportunity to learn about ``hands-on philanthropy'' will serve them well into adulthood. We can all take an important lesson from their great achievement and service to their community. I am delighted to recognize the Kentucky Country Day School for this momentous accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are eager to talk about Social Security and to talk about what it means to this country, to our seniors, to those that are about to be seniors and to our younger generations, our children, our grandchildren who will support the system throughout their work years and to talk about new opportunities that exist in Social Security to make sure that Social Security is sustainable and solvent for their lives, just like it is for those who are seniors today.

I think we should start the discussion by inviting seniors today who currently receive benefits to stay tuned. There are many people that talk about Social Security, that remind seniors that whatever changes occur they are changes for those who are in the current workforce and that it will not change for today's seniors. Sometimes that sounds a little bit like saying to today's seniors that they are not needed when, in fact, they are badly needed in this discussion.

It has always been our seniors that have appreciated Social Security specifically, but also had a broad interest to reflect on what it means to them and how important it is for their children and grandchildren. Over the years, they have been the caretakers of a system to make sure that Social Security lasted beyond their generation and into the future, both for their children and grandchildren, but also for the good of this country.

We need our seniors today just like we have always needed our seniors. We need them to pay attention to this debate, to participate in it, to bring us their good ideas, and to remind us that it is just as important to them that their children and grandchildren have a secure and solvent system of Social Security available to them.

So I thank our seniors for their concern. I thank them for the fact that they raise the issue at public meetings, in letters to the editor, in the mall. All of the places that we visit, they remind us that Social Security is important and that they are listening and that they care about the issue.

I invite them to listen to the ideas about the changes, changes in this country, changes in the demographics, changes in the challenges, and to bring to us their ideas of how we can better improve Social Security, make it stronger and more secure for their children and grandchildren.

It would be hard to start such a discussion without starting with the difference in the demographics in this country and why they present to us new and different challenges than when Social Security began back in 1935 or when it was last changed back in the early 1980s.

So let us start there. When Social Security began, there were 40 workers supporting every retiree. Forty workers are a lot of workers, and for a little bit, all of those workers could pool and support the retirees that were currently in the system.

Not so long ago when we last changed Social Security, there were 12 workers in the system that supported every retiree; and so, again, it was a program where current workers could fairly easily support the retiring community.

Today, there are only three workers in the system for every retiree, and that means that every worker has to give considerably more to the system in order to make sure that we meet the needs of our retirees; and for our children when they start to retire, there will only be two workers in the system for every retiree.

And so we are looking to improve the system, to strengthen the system, to make sure it is for our children, as they bear that responsibility, also an opportunity to strengthen the system itself and that it will be a system that they can then pass on to the generations behind them as a strong, solvent and sustainable program.

Mr. Speaker, my friend here, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), is eager to talk about this issue and to share with me his perspective. I know he hears from his seniors. I know he hears from the young people in his district, and he understands the challenge that we face as the demographics change, and so I yield now to him.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, the gentleman from Minnesota brought up the changes in demographics and not only the fact that there are fewer workers for every retiree but also the fact that we are living longer, and I think we all have to really celebrate that.

It used to be that the average age of death was when you were 61; you could not retire until you were 65. So forward looking, you did not have the hope of so many years of retirement and opportunity to live and travel and live a life full of opportunities to see your grandchildren grow and graduate from high school. So the changes in demographics are really something to celebrate, to appreciate and to recognize that it is to the benefit of all of us. But we have to make sure that the Social Security System supports those changes.

I see that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) is here to join us in the discussion, and I want to welcome him and thank him for joining us. I will bet he is hearing many of the same discussions in Texas these days, and I yield to him now, Mr. Speaker, to comment about that.

I am so impressed that the gentleman from Texas would tell us he has six grandchildren. My husband and I, after 36 years of marriage and six children, have one grandchild. I hope that I will catch you someday. They are the most blessed part of our lives and it is one of the things that makes us think long term as we consider public policy, what about our children, what about our grandchildren and hoping that their days are going to be as hopeful and filled with opportunity as our generations have been.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has joined us. Welcome. Tell us what you are hearing in Georgia about Social Security.

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us. I know you have talked at great length about this. You have worked so hard on it and talked to so many of your constituents, and you bring their wisdom and insights to us today. It is important that we talk about it. It is a very

complicated issue, talk about calculation of benefits; but it is very hopeful. It is hopeful that workers who are more likely going to depend on this even more, most of all because they are maybe in the lower third of wages, that they are going to have nothing but better opportunities. They are going to get the full benefit of calculation and the possibility of a personalized account also. For those at the highest end, they will have the calculation that starts maybe less, but they will have the personalized account that can give them every bit of what they would have gotten under the old system.

So lower-income workers would have nothing but a better opportunity. Higher-income workers would be able to have about the same thing that they have under the current system. Yet there is a huge difference. The system would be sustainable and solvent for our children and grandchildren.

There are people, as you know, that keep talking about why we should not change anything, but I think the point tonight is the hope and opportunity that exists in today's proposals.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) has joined us. He is one of our youngest, but brightest, Members. He is a leader on this issue. He has spoken on it with such great wisdom. I thank him for joining us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just point out that as recently as 1993, many of our colleagues across the aisle participated in raising taxes on Social Security benefits. So, previously, far more of the Social Security benefits were untaxed at any level. Today, far more of them are taxed, and they are taxed at a higher level because of the tax increase in 1993. Now, the way I think about it is, if we start taxing Social Security and we tax it at a higher level, that is a reduction in benefits.

So I am shocked to hear some of our colleagues talk about criticizing anything about benefits when, in fact, there was an enormous chunk of Social Security benefits that were retaken back from seniors starting in 1993 because of the tax increase.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concern about doing something now. The importance of it is easier to do it now because we can phase things in. We have opportunity and some time that we will not have if we wait until we are truly in a crisis.

But the crisis is coming on us very soon. The fact is baby boomers are going to retire starting in 2008, and then we will have a quick increase in the number of benefits, more people retiring and getting out of the workforce and basically fewer years in which to make any transitions.

One of the things that people say all the time that are on the ``we do not have to do anything now'' side is that they say we need to let the trust fund pay the benefits, all the money in the trust fund can pay the benefits up until a certain number of years. And, of course, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) knows there are no dollars in the trust fund. In fact, the trust fund never was meant to hold those dollars. They were meant to take in those dollars and lend them to the government.

Now, I suppose if we could bring back the Congress of 1945 and 1950 and 1955, we could ask them what their plans were for the year 2005, 2018, 2042. I suspect they would say that, as many

times have happened, at that point, the need seemed to be to provide those additional revenues to the government. Again in 1967, when Congress changed the benefit scheme, they added increased taxes on an increased basis that they paid into Social Security. They needed it to fund the war in Vietnam and to fund the Great Society. And I guess if we could bring back those Congresses we could say, What do you mean by spending Social Security taxes on the Great Society and the war? But that has passed. And the fact is that those dollars were spent.

I will say, though, that any company that took money into some sort of trust fund where there were going to be payouts expected would have had to accrue the liabilities, and if those liabilities had been accrued, along with the dollars in the trust fund, today, we would have $10 billion of accrued liabilities in the liability side across from the trust fund. So even if we had not spent the trust fund, not we but the Congresses of the past, before we got here, not spent the trust fund, the liabilities would swamp the dollars that are in the trust fund.

So it is important to recognize that generations before us benefitted from the dollars that came into Social Security but then were paid out for other government programs. They funded the Great Society. They funded education benefits. They funded defense. Things that those generations believed were important. Our current seniors. And now the responsibility for our children, of course, is to continue to fund investments in education, Pell grants, medical research, our defense programs and, at the same time, assume the responsibility for Social Security.

The exciting thing is, when we put our heads together, we can figure this out. The sooner we do it, the less difficult it will be so that benefits stay strong and are available to our seniors in succeeding generations, so that our children and grandchildren, as they meet the responsibility of retirees that go before them, can also grow within Social Security a solvent and sustainable system that will support their generation and the workers that are behind them in the system.

So I know that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) shares my belief that this is a time of hope and opportunity. We need to seize the moment and to really get the best ideas together to tackle the problem and set this program on a long-term course of sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree that it was a very interesting discussion. I will say, and I know that our younger generation would appreciate this, that in the course of conversations, there was one person that said, Let me just ask you this for curiosity's sake: If we had to say to our children and grandchildren that because of confluence of things, the economy, America's leadership in the world, whatever, that we were able to pay better benefits to current retirees and those about to retire, but you are just unlucky and you are not going to have the same benefits and that is just going to be where you fall in history, would that be acceptable?

I think pretty much everybody in the room said that would not be acceptable, that that would not be something that any of us feel we could say to our children and grandchildren.

Now, the opportunity is that we do not have to; that at the same time we shoulder the responsibilities of those that have retired and those about to retire, and at the same time we meet our responsibilities to domestic programs, that by investing in Social Security, and, yes, taking it off budget so we do not spend the surplus, yes, allowing personalized accounts, yes, guaranteeing those in the lower one-third of income full calculations, like they have always had, and for those in higher levels, maybe they would have a combination of personalized accounts and a different calculation, that all of that can make the system solvent, sustainable, and also maintain benefits.

For those who think raising taxes is the answer, I think it is important to recognize that everything in this country, our domestic programs, Social Security's long-term solvency, depends on a growing and vibrant economy, and without that, this country will be in dire financial straits.

When you look at a country like France that has maintained retirees' benefits, but at the same time has done it purely by taxing more and more in more and more ways and at higher and higher levels, basically what they have done is create a society that is stale, that is not growing and is not able to provide the revenues they hoped the tax increases would bring.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if today Social Security was just being designed, if we knew that people who get to be 65 are probably going to live 17 more years, if

we knew that you were going to work a certain number of years and then you were going to be able to have a life expectancy that would go on for a number of years, you might have dreams of traveling, of going to visit your grandchildren, of staying in your home and being able to maintain it, all of those dreams would depend on an entirely different savings and retirement system than the system that was designed in 1945. You certainly would not design Social Security today like they designed it back in 1945.

So to just steadfastly refuse to concede that opportunities are better for Americans, there is a new paradigm in retirement that exists, there are new opportunities, and there is a new way of deriving benefits that grow the economy, that do not overencumber the workers that are still in the workforce, we would do that in a minute.

It is disappointing that we have not been able to move further in this discussion than we have. But as we all know, it takes a lot of discussion.

I am eager to hear from my seniors. I know the gentleman is. Even though things will not change for them, I think it is important that we continue to invite our seniors to the table because seniors have always not only protected Social Security for their current benefits, but been very eager to make sure that it was going to be there for their children and grandchildren.

I thank them for their continued investment in time and interest for that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for joining me tonight. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is a leader in our conference and a leader on Social Security, and, of course, has long been appreciated for the ability to take very complicated issues and talk about them in ways that we all understand, and we can share and benefit from his insights.

I want to end tonight by saying that we are all more concerned about the next generation than the next election, and how much we appreciate our President, who from the day the last election was over did not forget that through that campaign he talked about the importance of taking on this tough issue, and did it so well and has been out talking to the American people. It is very refreshing to see somebody take on such a tough challenge and talk to the American people about it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight an important issue that has become the topic of much discussion across our country: Social Security.

Republicans in Congress have joined together to form a series of teams to highlight the important issues facing our Nation today, and I am proud to serve as the chairman of the Retirement Security Team and to be joined by a number of my esteemed colleagues for this important discussion tonight.

Mr. Speaker, we know that it is important that Congress address the challenges that Social Security stand before us in the coming years. We know that there is an increased number of retirees and that there are fewer joining the work force. When Social Security first paid out benefits in 1950 there were about 16 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3.3 workers for every retiree, and we are headed towards a time when there will be only 2 workers in the system for every retiree. This means that we need a system that can support a Social Security team program.

When Social Security began, it happened that it paid out benefits when you were 65, but the life expectancy was at the age of 62. So this means for the average American they paid into a system where they were expected to die 3 years before they would be entitled to collect benefits. To our great benefit and to all Americans' benefit, our lives are much different now. We know that our life expectancies are much greater than 65; 79, 80, 81 are becoming the life expectancy. And not only that, Americans are healthier. They are enjoying vibrant lives after they retire, and that means we have to have a Social Security system that can support the hope and opportunities that so many seniors have come to depend on and look forward to in their years after the age of 65.

It is an exciting time for Social Security. The Members here in Congress that are with me tonight are eager to address the challenges of Social Security so that we can meet our responsibilities and so that we can live up to the expectations of also our children and grandchildren who are going to be expected to bear the responsibility of this program after we ourselves are retired.

This is a good time to embrace this challenge, to put ideas on the table, to ask our friends across the aisle to join us and to make a difference for today's seniors that they know they are in a system that is strong and vital and is there for them as they have always known it. For those that are about to be retired, that there is a system that they can expect is going to stay the same and benefit them.

We need to invite seniors today and those that are about to be seniors to join us in this conversation as seniors in previous generations have done, to sit down at the table and to help ensure that this program that means so much to them will be there for their children and grandchildren.

The seniors in my district are appreciative of the generations before them that planned for a program that would be sustainable while they themselves were retired. And I know that they are eager to roll up their sleeves and to join in this discussion and make sure that the program for their children and grandchildren will be stainable too.

So tonight let me introduce several of my colleagues as we discuss what the opportunities are before us with relationship to Social Security.

First, I would like to introduce my very good friend, the gentleman from South Bend, Indiana (Mr. Chocola) or Elkhart, Indiana to be exact. I thank the gentleman for being with us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments,

and I know that I look forward to discussing some of the directions we do not go.

We know that raising taxes is not a solution. We know that depending on a trust fund that does not exist is not a solution; but I do see that our friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), has joined us. I welcome him, and I will yield to him for a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am over 55 and many of my friends are over 55. I hear it more often from people that are 49, that say, now, wait a minute, if you are going to cut off the people who can benefit from these at 50, I only have a year to go; so how long is it going to take you to pass this bill so that I can get in the gate and be one of those that can also grow a personal account within Social Security to help pay some of the benefits that I will be entitled to when I retire.

So I have heard that and I agree with my colleague. It is very heartening to talk to the seniors. They obviously know that they depend on Social Security. They deserve to be reassured that their benefits are not going to change.

But many of them remember that the Democrat Congress in 1993 passed a tax on Social Security. They raised the taxes on Social Security significantly. They had thought that their Social Security would be untaxed. Now it is taxed, and they realize that if we can secure Social Security for the long run, that their current Social Security is even less likely to incur higher tax rates or a greater percentage of their Social Security tax. That is reassuring to them and also gives them a sense that they have helped steer or shepherd Social Security through sort of this transition so that it will be there for their children.

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We are all looking for the best possible solution.

I think when you ask the question, can we afford to wait, the follow- up question is, or what we often hear from the other side of the aisle, we do not have a crisis now because the trust fund will take care of us until 2017 or 2018.

Let us talk a little bit about why that is not the solution. I do not know whether the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) would like to maybe lead that off, why we cannot wait and why the trust fund is not going to take care of this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and I want to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) to also discuss the trust find and why we cannot wait and depend on the trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to address the trust fund issue. I often use as an example an analogy that most people in every home can understand. I would say if you came home from work every week and you put some of your paycheck in a cookie jar for your child's college education, and then you borrowed it and you took a vacation, you bought some clothes, you did whatever with it, and you left an IOU in the cookie jar, at the end of 18 years you would have a cookie jar full of IOUs with no assets to back those up. In a sense, you would have nothing more than if you had never had the trust fund to start with. It is nothing but an accounting tool that shows us how much has gone in.

Now, this is how it was from the beginning. It is possible if we could bring back the Congresses of 1945 and 1948 and 1950 and 1960 and 1967, we could ask them if they would like to rethink that, and if they would have wanted to put it in a trust fund and put it someplace where it would grow and get interest and so forth. But in the meantime, those Congresses, believing that it was important to build an educational system and so forth, they spent the money.

In fact, in 1967, when Social Security was fixed at one point, increased revenues, it supported the war in Vietnam and at the same time the Great Society. Unfortunately, those programs that were started at that time still are the responsibility of the generations that followed behind. So our children are not only going to have the responsibility of Social Security, they also are going to bear the responsibility of continuing these programs that our educational system is dependent on, that our health system is dependent on, and that our rural communities have depended on. It is part of the American foundation.

So that is an enormous responsibility, filling the necessary programs and at the same time paying Social Security benefits that should have been part of a trust but that are not. So the trust fund is not something that is going to be there for our children to depend on or for those that are about to be retiring. In fact, already Social Security is reaching across to the education programs, the health programs, and pulling those dollars back across into Social Security to pay out the old-age benefits that have been promised, and that of course we are going to pay.

So already we are feeling the pressure on all of the other programs that got used to depending on the Social Security surplus dollars. Each year that is difficult for us, but starting in 2017 not only will every Social Security dollar be absorbed in benefits that will be paid out, but also dollars that have come in in general revenues, that had been used to sustain our defense, to keeping our rivers going and our airports flying and all the other responsibilities that government has, they will have to be foregoing those dollars to pay Social Security benefits. And as more of the baby boomers retire, that gets into a deficit that is so steep it challenges this country for all the rest of the years without a fix in Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I do see that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), has come in. I know that he has put forth or introduced a plan that has all of us very interested in that plan and how it would work. Maybe I could ask the gentleman to spend a little while telling us about his program.

Mr. Speaker, I will give all of my colleagues a chance to respond to the presentation of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and I thank the gentleman for his hard work. It is very difficult with all of the numbers and all of the actuarial work, and we are all very excited about this plan.

When the gentleman talks about the $7 trillion that would accumulate in workers' accounts, it reminds me of how important in an economy it is to have a thriving middle class. Economies with a few rich and many poor do not thrive because there is not a majority of people with purchasing power. In my district we make refrigerators and dishwashers and Ford has a Ford Explorer plant. We need a huge middle class that can create demand and gain the benefits of that production.

Years ago when there was only a fraction of Americans that owned stocks, all they got was what they made when they went to work. They got paid by the hour, week, or the month. As the economy grew, only that 20 percent that owned stocks shared in the wealth that came from the growth of the economy.

When you start to have every worker start to own stocks and bonds, they get to share in the economic growth of this country so you increase the purchasing power of the middle class. So you not only allow every single worker to increase the fruits of their labor; you also create an economy that is vibrant and exciting.

Also as we have more seniors that retire, it is important that they maintain their purchasing power. If our seniors wind up with the lowest amount of dollars that they can spend, they will not be able to participate in growing our economy. So the benefits of every single person growing a nest egg, a nest egg that they can count on and pass on to their children, that they can watch and understand what it means to the relationship between their job and their future when they retire is hugely important. We thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, that is true and certainly in an accounting system, no one would approve an accounting system where the assets that are coming in are going to have to meet future liabilities without also accounting for those future liabilities. If you can reduce a 10 or 11 or $12 trillion liability to a $2 trillion transition, that you incur as a transition, what you have done is overall reduced liability to our children and grandchildren. That is an excellent point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Speaker, I see that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) has joined us, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just reiterate what the gentleman said. How important it is and how thrilled we would be to have more of the Democrats there. First of all, I want to thank the Democrats who are still committed to come to it. I am eager to meet with them. I remember when I was in the Kentucky legislature in 1990, that we had education reform and I was in the minority and I was one of the Republicans that reached across the aisle and joined the majority party in passing educational reform. It just had a profound impact on education. It was one of the first systems that had an accountability system where we tested and held schools accountable.

It is thrilling when something happens, where people put party aside and step forward and pass something that will make generations of differences. And I am so excited that AARP is going to be part of a meeting, a bipartisan meeting. I am thrilled that two of our Democrat colleagues are eager to come. I know my colleagues here share my eagerness to hear what they have to say and start to look for common ground. I hope they will prevail upon some of their other members that this is bigger than a party thing. It is really something that is important for the future of our country, and I believe that it could still be quite a successful meeting.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know our time is about up. So let me start by yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to see if he has any final thoughts or anything he wants to say in conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me close by thanking my colleagues who are here tonight. The gentleman from Elkhart, Indiana (Mr. Chocola) has been a friend who has been on the floor. We have had opportunities to discuss this previously, and I know we will be back for future opportunities. And the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has been a great leader on this issue. He is so thoughtful and so articulate on it, and I know that Americans around the country that heard him tonight were inspired. And, finally, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is a leader in our caucus, and we depend on his advice and his leadership, and he has made a huge difference.

And we look forward to joining our fellow Americans around the country to continue these conversations in the future.