Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to tell by reading the front pages of papers across the country, but the House has been racking up legislative accomplishments, one after another after another, most of the times with growing bipartisan support.

Look at just a few of the accomplishments in the first 100 days of this Congress.

Legal reform. The Class Action Fairness Act addresses the most serious lawsuit abuse by allowing larger interstate class action cases to be heard in Federal courts with a Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights.

Border security and immigration reform. The REAL ID Act completes the work of the 9/11 Commission recommendations by implementing reforms to strengthen our border security and better protect our homeland.

The death tax repeal. The permanent repeal of the death tax ends the unjust and unfair tax on millions.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and a welcome sight to me to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join us to do the people's work. Let us continue that good work and tackle Social Security and tax reform.

Madam Speaker, government waste, fraud, and abuse have taken every shape and form one can imagine, and now it is even affecting our lax immigration policies.

The U.S. Government recently spent close to $240 million to help our border patrol with the latest technology. The problem is the equipment does not work. That is right, $240 million and the government is left with a bunch of useless equipment. Sounds like we ought to get a refund.

The border patrol needs all the help it can get, and for the last few weeks, hundreds of concerned citizens formed the largest Neighborhood Watch in Arizona, the Minuteman Project. Their goal is to help spot illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico.

Ordinary people watching the border and easily spotting aliens illegally crossing should outrage every single Member of Congress. How can we claim to be for national security, for the rule of law, when such incredible violation takes place in front of our very own eyes?

Madam Speaker, America is a very generous Nation, but we are allowing our laws to be broken and our borders to be violated without consequence.

It is long past time we secure our borders, reevaluate our immigration laws, and get serious about national security.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 6 weeks, Democratic leaders have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They have leveled charges against the majority leader, yet at the same time they will not allow the ethics committee to convene and explore the facts. If they are serious about our ethics process in this institution, why will they not let the ethics committee organize so that it can conduct its business?

Time and time again the ethics committee chairman has offered to end the Democratic logjam. This is the same old, tired, petty, partisan politics of the past. A Democrat leader is quoted as saying this issue will cost Republican seats in next year's election, petty, partisan politics.

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the activities of the Democrat leaders, they would rather have an issue than a solution. It is sad and it is cynical.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to an open, fair and expedient ethics process and are willing to work with Democrats productively. I challenge all Members of this body to ask their leaders to act responsibly. Let us allow the ethics committee to proceed with their appropriate work. Stop the petty, partisan, political tactics. Let us work together and honor our constituents' trust.

Mr. Speaker, balancing a checkbook and principles such as saving and investing seem like a foreign language to much of our Nation's youth. Sadly, many of our high school graduates lack the basic skills to handle their own finances. Combine that with the spending power of teenagers, $150 billion annually, and it should come as no surprise that when they go off to college, credit card companies cannot hand out the plastic fast enough to these new customers who have no credit history, no income and no job. In fact, in 2001, more young people filed for bankruptcy than graduated from college.

With April being Financial Literacy Month, it is time to show that finance and economic lessons simply do not end in the classroom. The earlier students learn about dollars and cents, the better equipped they will be to enter the world with knowledge about how to save, how to earn and how to spend.

Mr. Speaker, studies have shown financial education has been linked to lower delinquency rates for mortgage borrowers, higher participation and contribution rates in retirement plans, improved spending and saving habits and higher net worth.

The need for financial education in our classrooms and at home has never been more apparent. Increasing financial literacy is key to helping our next generation reach their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, at the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem that reads: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' Understood in this fundamental principle is that our Nation would welcome anyone in an orderly and a legal process.

Yet, on a daily basis thousands of illegal aliens cross our border, encouraged by the Mexican Government, which provides a copy of the Mexican Migrant Guide, full of tips on how to blend into our society and receive benefits once they get here.

The illegal alien population is, admittedly, 11 million in the United States, with the actual number probably closer to 20 million. The problems are no longer confined to border States with nearly 250,000 illegal aliens now calling Georgia home, placing my home State in the top 10 with illegal populations.

Nearly every public service, from our schools to our hospitals, are suffering financially caring for illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, Americans recognize the economic and national security concerns posed by this increasing problem. It is time we take action and secure our Nation's borders, responsibly solve this national emergency and hold neighbor nations accountable for their actions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is April 15, an important day. It is tax day. Today, millions of Americans are in the process of filing their taxes. When all is said and done, many will get a refund from Uncle Sam. Hopefully, these refunds will not be needed to pay to fill up their gas tank.

At every town hall meeting I have held, the price of gasoline has been a significant issue. Last weekend when I was at home in my district, I saw gas costing $2.15 and $2.24 and even higher per gallon. The prices do not seem to be coming down any time soon.

If we had a comprehensive energy plan in place, we might not have seen these massive price increases. The time to act is now.

What are the facts? Well, since 2001, the average price of gasoline increased 86 percent, from $1.23 to $2.29 a gallon. U.S. imports of oil over that period of time have increased by more than 10 percent, and the price of a barrel of oil has more than doubled from just over $23 to over $50 a barrel today.

Many remember the early 1970s when we sat in lines to get our gasoline, and those lines often stretched for blocks and blocks. That gave us a lot of time to think, and most of us vowed that our Nation should never be dependent on foreign oil again.

Today, however, the sad truth is we are actually more dependent on foreign oil than we were then. So, as tax day arrives, let us be certain that we adopt an energy policy so comprehensive that future tax refunds will do more than just get spent on a tank of gas.

Madam Speaker, it is time that we bury the death tax today, once and for all. For too long the American dream has turned into the American nightmare and for too many citizens and countless small businesses.

Many Americans with dreams take risks, invest their savings, work long hours, and the government keeps over half of their assets when they die, 55 percent. That is the amount Washington takes with the death tax, 55 percent, and that is not fair to anyone.

The death tax undermines our economy, and I know that we can do better. It costs our economy over 250,000 jobs a year. That is a quarter of a million people who should be collecting paychecks rather than unemployment checks.

Madam Speaker, the death tax is hurting families, and it is killing our small businesses. Freedom and liberty demand that hard-working Americans be able to leave their children the results of their success, not have Washington get a windfall. Let us act today and let the death tax die for good.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

I think it is important that we spend a moment or two and talk about how we got here, why do we have a death tax and what is its consequence; what is the fundamental we are talking about.

The death tax began in 1916 in order to fund World War I, a noble cause but a cause that has long since passed. It remained through the 1920s and 1930s under the rationale that we should prevent the accumulation of wealth, an issue more than addressed with our current anti-trust laws.

The death tax has become a harmful relic of previous times. It survives through the inertia of government and now has the consequence of punishing hard work and success. It harms families, and it kills small businesses.

Families should not have to visit the undertaker and the tax collector on the very same day.

The death tax is fundamentally unfair and violates what should be our principle of freedom and liberty and the imperative of personal property rights.

Freedom and liberty demand that hard-working Americans be able to leave their children and their grandchildren the results of their diligence and their success and not have Washington get a windfall.

I urge all of my colleagues to act positively today on behalf of all Americans and let the death tax die for good.

Madam Speaker, we have heard all about the problems with Social Security many times here on the House floor: looming deficits, benefit cuts, payroll tax hikes. These problems are very real, and they are just around the corner if we do not act.

With that being said, my colleagues across the aisle continue to criticize, continue to say to the American people that there is no problem when, in fact, the 2005 Trustees Report showed the problem to be crystal clear. Social Security will begin paying out more than it collects in 2017. By 2041, the Social Security system as we know it will be insolvent with not enough money to pay 100 percent of the promised benefits.

Raising payroll taxes is not a solution. Just look at our history. Payroll taxes have been increased over 20 times since Social Security began.

Madam Speaker, across the aisle we hear the same old rhetoric of why things will not work. The question I have for them is what are their proposals to fix Social Security?

The challenges with Social Security are not Republican, and they are not Democrat. This is a challenge for all Americans, and I call upon those across the aisle to help us find a solution. Let us put people above politics.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House this evening on an issue that is really of utmost importance and urgency. It is something that has been in the news an awful lot over the past number of weeks and months; and hopefully tonight we will be able, along with some of my colleagues, to bring some greater clarity to the importance of this issue, as well as the importance of solving the challenge of this issue, and that issue is Social Security.

As a freshman here in Congress, when I go home I get asked, What are your impressions of Congress? What is going on up there?

I am struck by two things. The first is that we live in challenging times, incredibly challenging times, and there are issues that demand attention and that demand the honest, hard work of the people in Congress on behalf of the citizens of our Nation, and it is imperative that we act. Our constituents demand that we act, and it is appropriate that they should do so.

The second impression that I have is that I could not be more proud to serve with a President who is not afraid to tackle big issues. We have got some incredible issues before us, Social Security being one of them, and this President has put it on the table and said, Ladies and gentlemen, let's work together honestly and sincerely and let's solve this problem.

We had a break at home recently; we were all home for 2 weeks talking to our constituents and our neighbors and friends, and I had the privilege of being with Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Levitt, who was speaking to a group about Social Security, and he kind of crystallized it, I thought, really very, very well.

He said, There comes a time in history when a problem is large enough to see, yet still small enough to fix.

There comes a time in history when a problem is large enough to see, yet still small enough to fix, and I believe that Social Security is exactly at that stage. The problem is large enough to see, but still small enough to fix.

Let me begin very briefly, and then have some of my colleagues join me. I would like to talk about some principles. I think it is important when we have discussions about public policy, especially on something as important as Social Security, that we stick to principles. I can outline four or five principles that I find to be incredibly important in this discussion about Social Security.

The first one is that it is a promise. I believe and I suspect that the majority of Americans believe that Social Security is not just a government program; it is not just a program that was instituted 70 years ago willy-nilly. It is more than a safety net. It is a promise. It is a covenant with the American people by all of us to the generations of hard-working Americans, and it says that Washington took money from your paycheck, your paycheck, your entire life, and they made a promise to you to return that money upon your retirement. So it is a promise.

The second principle that I think is important to keep in mind is that of generational fairness. It is imperative that we save and that we secure Social Security so that our children and our grandchildren will receive the same benefits that we when we retire will have enjoyed. So generational fairness. It only works when it is fair for all Americans.

The third principle, and this is a tough one in this institution, and I was listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a little bit earlier and sometimes with amusement, but the third, which I am serious about and I believe that all of us should be, is that this issue should not be partisan. It ought not be partisan.

When it comes to the retirement of tens of millions of Americans, there are not Democrats or Republicans. We are all Americans, and those Americans are counting on us to work together and to do what is right for the current generation and for future generations and those just entering the workforce. So it ought not be partisan.

Fourth is that concept of a nest egg. All working Americans deserve the peace of mind that if they live by the rules and they work hard and they live up to their responsibilities, that there ought to be a nest egg available to them, taken from that money that they have so generously put into the Social Security system.

Finally, and we oftentimes find that Washington forgets this, but to all Americans, this is your money. This is your money. It is not the government's money; it is your money. It is your future, and it is your life.

I think if we keep in mind those principles, that it is a promise, that there ought to be generational fairness, that it ought not be partisan, that we ought to concentrate on preserving that nest egg, and, finally, it is your money, that it is Americans' money, we will go a long way towards ending up with the right solution.

I am privileged to be joined tonight by a number of my colleagues who will touch on some issues as they relate to Social Security and their perspective. First is the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson). The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) recently returned from that 2-week period conducting over 20 town meetings with constituents regarding Social Security.

When I think of those Members of the House who have the highest level of honor and integrity, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) is right at the top of that list. In my very short period of time here in Congress, I have come to appreciate him greatly. He is the grandfather of two young boys, and he clearly understands the demographic challenges that are facing Social Security and the need to strengthen the system now.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson). He is absolutely right about the President, with his courage and leadership. The easy thing in this issue is to do nothing.

That is the easy thing to do. Because there are a few years where people are not going to feel it, they are not going to feel that pain, but the gentleman from South Carolina so vividly brings a face to that by presenting his son and his grandchildren, and I appreciate that very, very much.

I would like now to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), another fellow freshman who is the father of four grown children and a grandfather to six. He has demonstrated remarkable leadership in his 3 short months in Congress with me, and over the break he conducted 15 Social Security town hall meetings in his district. He brings excellent expertise to this issue, because he is a CPA and a small business owner and former chief financial officer. He truly understands the financial impact that a failing Social Security system will have on his children and his grandchildren and all of us.

So I thank the gentleman, and I yield to him to discuss this issue.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for his comments. I appreciate that. And that letter really just gets to the heart of the matter. I hope to see that letter in their newsletter. They ought to be sending that kind of information out to their members because, as he said, it really is a disservice when the level of discussion about something so incredibly important sinks to these little games that are played that are not productive and that frankly do a disservice to our Nation and to its citizens. So I thank the gentleman for his participation this evening.

Now I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake), another stellar member of the freshman class who is going to join us. She is a Realtor and former State delegate from Virginia. As a former small business owner herself, she is extremely familiar with the positive impact protecting Social Security will have on millions of American families and small businesses. And I yield time to the gentlewoman from Virginia as she consumes.

I thank my colleague from Virginia (Mrs. Drake). My goodness, she brought such clarity to this issue in her explanation there, and I really appreciate that. I also have used the analogy of refinancing a home, a home mortgage to kind of bring clarity and focus on what it is that we must do, we must do as a Nation. And so I appreciate her bringing that perspective to us.

I also just was struck as she was talking. You know, the other side seems to think that if we do not do anything, it costs nothing. Well, that could not be further from the truth. So I really appreciate her participation, and I thank her ever so much.

Mr. Speaker, I think what you have seen this evening initially with the discussions of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) on the issue of demographics and on the demand or the need for honesty in this discussion and the concern and the clarity with which the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) talked about these transition costs as they are described, that they are bringing about those principles that I talked about: that it is a promise; that it is important that we make certain that generations are treated fairly; that this ought not be partisan; that there is a nest egg there; and that it is your money. It is America's money. It is not the government's money.

As I was, over the past couple of months, looking into this issue regarding Social Security, I always try to figure out where it all began, where is the fundamental problem, but also what are other folks saying on this. And I came across some interesting quotes I would like to share with you. The first

one, I think, gives a great perspective on the issue of Social Security. I am a child of the 60s; and so when I grew up, President John F. Kennedy, I remember clearly the manner in which he was able to convey his passion to our Nation and to focus our energy. And he recognized back in June 1961, regarding the issue of Social Security, he said, a Nation's strength lies in the well-being of its people. And the Social Security program, remember, this is 1961. The Social Security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress. But it cannot remain static. It cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision. Constant revision. It cannot remain static.

Well, what has happened to our program? It has remained static. There have been no fundamental changes to our situation as it relates to Social Security. So I am fond of telling folks that our current situation is a result of demographics, the aging of our society, but also to inertia. There is an inherent inertia in government at all levels to do nothing, that it is easier to ignore a problem than it is to fix a problem. That is not only true at the city council level, where it is easier to keep the collection for garbage on the same days, even though it might work better to do it in a different manner.

But it certainly is true here in Washington where we have big issues like Social Security. It is easier to do nothing. And that is why I am so proud again to serve with a President who understands the importance of tackling this issue head on.

When we think about Social Security, remember the program that President Kennedy said cannot remain static. I had my staff look up what kind of things were going on 70 years ago when the program began. Social Security is 70 years old, 70 years old. There has been a little tinkering but no fundamental changes, and the world has changed significantly.

Seventy years ago we were in the midst of the Great Depression. Seventy years ago FDR was our President. Babe Ruth hit his last three home runs in one game, setting the record at 714 career home runs. Seventy years ago, Elvis Presley was born. A 1935 sedan cost $495 brand spanking new, and a modern six-room house sold for $2,800. Seventy years ago, Parker Brothers released the board game Monopoly, nylon was discovered, and the construction of the Hoover Dam was completed. Seventy years ago was a long time ago, and the world has changed, and our population has changed.

I think it is clear that when Social Security began it was a wonderful program. It was first designed for a different generation and for a different America. There are really at least four specific facts that convinced me when I began looking at this issue that the old system, the current system, is no longer workable for our society and it is no longer secure.

The first is, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) mentioned, is that our Nation has matured from the time that men were the majority of the workforce and the life expectancy was about 60 years old. Today, in the majority of households, both men and women are working; and our life expectancy is significantly over 70 years of age. We are living longer and healthier lives, and that trend is only going to increase, and that is very good for all of us. But it is not good for our Social Security system.

We have seen this demographic before. This gets to the issue of the second thing that convinced me that we have got to modify and reform the system, and that is the issue of the workers. We are in a pay-as- you-go system, which means that today's workers pay for today's retirees. And when the system began in 1935 or 1937, there were 41 workers for every retiree. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, every retiree. Today, there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary or retiree; and in a very short period of time there will be two workers for every retiree. That is the system that cannot sustain itself. We are on an unsustainable course.

The third issue that led me to believe and understand and appreciate that we have got to reform the system is what I call the 2008 phenomenon. 2008, what happens in 2008? Well, this graph you may have seen. In the year 2008, these are the surpluses. This is the amount of money coming into the Social Security system. In 2008, the surpluses peak, the surpluses peak and begin to decrease. And at the same time the baby boomers begin to retire. That large group of individuals in our population, me being one of them, in 2008 they begin to retire.

The baby boomers started in 1946. The average age of retirement is 62. You take 1946, you add 62 to it, 2008 and they begin to retire. 2008 is not a long way off. It is right around the corner.

Finally, fourth, if you think about the system that we have had in place for Social Security, again it is a pay-as-you-go system, so the current workers pay for the current retirees. When there were lots of workers, there was more money in the pool for retirees. But what has happened? What has happened when we get down to that area where we have got 3.3 workers and then soon 2 workers for every retiree, the amount of money that is being returned is, frankly, an embarrassment.

When the system started, people got much more money than they put into the system. Now it takes years and years for individuals to get the amount of money back that they just put into the system. In fact, most individuals are getting less than 2 percent return on the money that they put into Social Security. Less than 2 percent. That is not a nest egg. That is not secure. That is not enough to retire with security.

There was an article that came out today that I think brings clarity to that, and it is by Stuart Butler, who is a renowned and noted economist, Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policies at the Heritage Foundation. And let me just share with you a couple of paragraphs from this article. It was entitled, ``The Social Security Crisis Gets Personal.''

In this article dated today, April 12, 2005, he stated that, ``As the Social Security system itself has aged, payroll taxes have grown relentlessly and the return on those taxes has fallen dramatically. When Social Security began the payroll tax was just 2 percent of income. Now it is 12.4 percent. Today, the average male worker about to retire will typically get just 1.27 percent return on his lifetime of taxes, less than he would get from a savings account. That is bad enough, but the younger you are the worse it will get. A 25-year-old worker can expect a return of minus .647 percent.'' He loses money.

Here is the kicker right here. ``Imagine what Congress would say if a private company was taking in billions of dollars from millions of hard working Americans and then giving them back less money in retirement.'' Well, you can imagine what Congress would say.

So we have got more retirees, fewer workers, and less money. All of these facts, and facts are the same regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, all of these facts do not paint a pretty picture.

It is incumbent upon us here in Congress to put the security back in Social Security. There was a time when our friends on the other side of the aisle agreed, and we did a little work and came up with some quotes from individuals. These are actual quotes, actual statements from some very prominent individuals on the other side of the aisle when they appreciated or they admitted that they have appreciated that there was indeed a problem in Social Security.

This is a quote from President Clinton in February of 1997, 8 years ago, February of 1997. ``For the long-term health of our society, we must agree to a bipartisan process to preserve Social Security and reform Medicare for the long run so that these fundamental programs will be as strong for our children as they are for our parents.'' Clearly identifying one of the principles I spoke about.

Here is a quote from President Clinton in February of 1998. ``So that all of these achievements, the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children, all of them, all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.''

Now there has been some discussion about whether or not we have a crisis or a problem or it is a challenge. This

is 1998, 1998, President Clinton saying, ``threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.'' Clearly, President Clinton understood the issue at that time.

Here is a quote from the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in March of 1998, talking about the issue of Social Security and investment, these personal retirement accounts, voluntary personal retirement accounts. ``Young people, especially, have lost faith.'' He is talking about the Social Security system. ``They wonder why they cannot take care of their own retirements with stock and bond investments, rather than trusting a system that either is headed for bankruptcy or will provide paltry or negative returns on their contributions.'' Another august individual from the other side of the aisle who certainly appreciated the problem.

And then Senator Harry Reid. He is now the Minority Leader in the United States Senate. In February of 1999, he said, ``Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector,'' these voluntary personal retirement accounts that we have been talking about.

They recognized the issue. If they recognized the issue in 1997 and 1998 and 1999, what is the solution? What is the solution that they have put on the table? What are they offering to this remarkable challenge that we have as a Nation?

Well, a little earlier I talked about the initial impressions that I have had in my freshman term here in Congress, and one of the things that may not surprise anyone is the remarkable level of partisanship. Remember I talked about the need for this to be a nonpartisan issue, but the incredible level of partisanship and nowhere is it more clear than on the issue of Social Security. The Social Security problem is clearly defined, and there is a clear recognition by both Democrats and Republicans as demonstrated here that we need to fix the system. Yet where is the plan from the other side of the aisle? What is the plan that they have on the table?

Well, we searched and we searched and we searched and we searched. And this is the plan that we have come up with. This is the plan that the other side of the aisle in this incredibly important issue, in an issue that will impact every single American, this is the plan that they have on the table.

Just say no. Just criticize. It is politics as usual. It does such a huge disservice to us as a Nation and to every one of their citizens. So we should act now. There is no doubt about it. We should act now.

The Social Security trustees, the Comptroller General of the United States, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board all agree that the sooner we address the problem, the smaller and less abrupt the changes will be for individuals and their families.

One of the individuals who works in my office just this past week got her Social Security statement, her Social Security statement that each of us get each year, and I was reading through the text of what everybody receives from the Social Security administration about their Social Security. And it clearly says and I urge every American to read the fine print when this comes to your home. It says from the Social Security Administration, ``Unless action is taken soon to strengthen Social Security, in just 14 years we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2042 the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted. By then the number of Americans 65 or older is expected to have doubled. There will not be enough younger people working to pay all of the benefits owed to those who are retiring.''

This is not an opinion by anybody on my side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle. This is the Social Security administration who is looking at the numbers, seeing what kind of revenue is coming in and what is going to happen and warning each and every one of us, further, that there will be enough money to pay only about 73 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.

So I had the plan from the other side of the aisle. This is their plan. If you wanted to put a face on it, if you wanted to draw it on a graph, that plan is this graph. What this says is that we go along and go along and go along just as we are doing now until we get to that date, 2041, when the bottom falls out of the system and individuals are only able to receive 73 or 74 percent, which is a 26 or 27 percent cut in benefits.

I promise you that that is not acceptable. It certainly is not acceptable to me. It is not acceptable to our side of the aisle, and I do not believe it is acceptable to the American people. So it is a promise. This issue ought to be nonpartisan. We ought to get together, and I urge my colleagues to do so. There needs to be generational fairness so that younger individuals have faith that some of the money certainly that they have put into the system will be able to grow and be able to provide for their nest egg.

Finally, it is your money. It is Americans' money. It is not the government's money. It is your money. These ought to be our principles, and we should focus on the facts, study the issue and alternatives that are available to us, vigorously debate, both sides of the aisle vigorously debate and then act. It is imperative that we move forward with this because, as we have heard, every year we delay costs this Nation, costs the American public, costs you $600 billion.

Social Security is a system that has worked for decades and for generations, but the current system is outdated and does not meet the needs of the American people. It is not secure.

We have a wonderful opportunity right now. Right now, imagine the peace of mind that you would have knowing that the contributions that you make each month into Social Security will result in a nest egg for your retirement that you own and that no one can take away. That is my vision and that is my dream and I hope that you share that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and I ask my colleagues to take the time now, take this time now and let us get to work. We all look forward to the discussion that is coming about on this issue, but I am hopeful that we will remember those principles, that it is a promise and ought not to be partisan and to keep in mind every single generation and be fair to them. Remember that nest egg that must be maintained for security and that it is American's money, it is not the government's money. If we do not act now, that would be the height of irresponsibility, as with saying that there is no problem or that little needs to be done.

So I urge this House, I urge the Senate and I urge the President to work together and I congratulate the President for bringing this issue forward to find a responsible and a secure solution.

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that during my recent town hall meetings Georgians made their feelings on illegal immigration crystal clear. Look at the statistics. The illegal alien population in this country has now reached close to 11 million, and that is only what the government will admit. Georgia ranks in the top 10, with nearly one quarter million illegal aliens living in our State. This is not a problem we can simply ignore.

It is time to strengthen our border security and to enforce the law. Illegal aliens cost our society greatly. Our public education system and our health care system are choking. The costs are spiraling upward, and American taxpayers are paying the bills.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, allowing illegal aliens to stay here is a slap in the face to those who followed the law, waited in line, and entered this country legally. My constituents are right, and we must do more.

This year the House has passed the REAL ID Act, which is a great start, but it is only a start. I urge the Senate to adopt this act and all my colleagues

to join together to strengthen our immigration laws and their enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor a few of Georgia's top educators. The following principals, Robin Lattizori of Mt. Bethel Elementary School, Angela Bailey of Mountain View Elementary School, Ron Wade of Centennial High School, Dr. Michael Johnson of Kell High School, and Dr. Edward Spurka of Roswell High School, all have been named one of the top 10 principals in Georgia by the State's PTA.

These principals do not just teach; they reach. They inspire students and teachers, and they encourage our kids and our teachers and our parents to work in concert, resulting in more of our young people expanding their horizons and their dreams.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, teaching is more than reciting material out of a textbook and hoping that students absorb the information, and being a principal is more than making certain the doors open on time. The love, dedication, and inspiration these leaders display on a daily basis set them apart. They are the energy behind the bright lights of our education system and are working to nurture tomorrow's leaders.

To each of them I send a hearty congratulations and thank you; but most importantly, your students, their parents, and the teachers thank you for the passion with which you do your job. Well done.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and talk to an issue near and dear to our hearts. As we talk about the challenges that we have with Medicare, as with many programs, what we are attempting to do is to lay out the issue before us and to make certain that we retain those aspects of the program which are so very important and provide for greater health, higher quality health for our seniors, and that we do so in a way that listens to principles. I am fond of going back and talking about principles because I think unless you understand what principles you want to institute, you can get off the mark.

The principles that I like to talk about when I am speaking about Medicare is that we have the highest quality of care that is available, that the cost for that care be absolutely reasonable, that people are not being gouged and you do not have the problems with the waste, fraud and abuse that has been talked about.

And finally, what is incredibly important for Medicare, patient choice. That is patients get to choose who is taking care of them and where they are being treated. Let me just chat a little bit about some of the challenges that we have before us and why we are in the kind of situation we are in.

This chart may look familiar because it is a chart that we have used to demonstrate some of the challenges that our Nation has as it relates to other systems, the Social Security, for example. But the demographic changes that are occurring in our society right now, the aging of our population, that really is the main reason that we have got these challenges within the Medicare system.

As Members see here, today's workers are providing the moneys for the Medicare system, those individuals who are the recipients. So you need a lot of workers to provide the resources with which to care for our seniors. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every

retiree or every senior. This year, there are 3.3 workers for every senior retiree. In a few number of years, there will be two workers for every retiree.

What that means for Medicare is we have an aging population and fewer resources with which to support that population's health care. I think it is important to appreciate that principle. Remember that principle of highest quality, reasonable cost, and choice for patient, and the demographics of our society, the aging of our population, is driving some of the decisions that we make that may violate some of those principles.

What is going on with the cost of health care? The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) had a poster up before that talked about and showed the increasing line of money being spent for health care. That will continue of necessity because of the aging of the population.

One of the problems that we have with Medicare, though, is it is an inflexible system. A number of years ago, we, the Congress, instituted a program called ARBORS, Resource-Based, Relative-Value System, which means we as a Nation will decide how much money we are going to spend on health care for seniors; and regardless of the amount of money that is needed or regardless of the amount of care that is going to be provided, we are not going to violate that. We are going to have a pool of money and pay for the care needed out of that pool. If there is a lot more care that needs to be provided, we have challenges in our system. Remember, we wanted highest quality care, reasonable cost, and choice for patients.

What we have now is a system that oftentimes is being held together just by the altruism of the individuals involved in providing that care, the doctors and hospitals at home, those individuals who are being asked to do more with less, and oftentimes are being asked to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less.

The system we have worked well when there were a lot of workers. However, now when we have fewer workers in this pay-as-you-go system, it becomes more difficult to hold that system together. It is an inflexible system. It is not able to juggle or change with the changes in our society. I want to use as an example of that the debate that has been going on over the last couple of years about a prescription drug plan or a prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

When Medicare was instituted in the mid-1960s, medications, drugs and pharmaceuticals, were not necessarily that extremely important for the care of disease because there were not a whole lot of variants in the type of medications that we had. Oftentimes the treatment for a disease or an illness was in the hospital, which is why Medicare built up as a system that provided primarily for hospital insurance, for hospital care, and provided coverage for the physician as well; but did not have a drug component to it, did not have a prescription drug benefit within the system.

Over a relatively short period of time after the mid-1960s, the explosion in our technology and in our ability to have medications that truly affected the outcome of illness and provided a higher quality of care, and remember one of our principles is that high quality of care, medications just flourished. But the Medicare system stayed absolutely the same. Through the 1980s and 1990s as so many medications were discovered and have been utilized to save people's lives, Medicare was stuck in the mud not providing any prescription drug coverage.

So the President to his great credit put this issue on the table, and in 2003 a Medicare prescription drug plan was introduced. That is important because we have moved now to a health care system that relies a whole lot more on medications than it did in the past.

My purpose in bringing that issue up is that it took us 40 years to get to a point where we had a system that provided for prescription drug coverage. That is a program, a Medicare program, that I believe is inflexible and does not have the kind of capability to change with the needs of patients. One of our principles is patient choice. Patients ought to be able to choose who is taking care of them, where they are being cared for, and what kind of care they are receiving. That brings me to the final point I would like to make.

I think as we move through this discussion, it is imperative that we make certain that the highest quality of care that is being delivered at reasonable cost, those principles, also have the principle of patient choice. When I was a practicing physician, I knew that the important things that patients would talk to me about, if they did not tell me what their wishes and desires were, I could not respond adequately to the kinds of needs that they had. That is patient choice. In an inflexible system, in a Medicare system that is inflexible, it is not possible for patients to be able to exercise their choice.

I believe as we go through this discussion and make certain that we retain a Medicare system that will provide the highest quality of care at the most reasonable cost available, but with patient choice, patient choice is what is so incredibly important, as we allow and provide for patients to be able to have the access to the care that they so need.

Some improvements have been discussed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) has talked about a proposal that I think has great merit. I just hope as we go through this discussion that we do not end up in the political name-calling and demagoguery that has been so wont to happen in other issues that we have talked about here. I think if we just stick to the principles of highest quality of care at a reasonable cost and make certain that one of those principles has to be that patients have choice, choice about who is taking care of them, where they are being cared for and the kind of treatment that they are receiving, that we will end up with a program that will be flexible and that will be much more responsive to patients' needs, which in the end is what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for the opportunity to participate in this incredibly important and vital issue that means so much to so many Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of charges talked about tonight and a lot of emotion. This is a painful process. As a physician, I have dealt with end-of-life decisions in families as they struggle countless times. Why is this one different? First and foremost, there is no living will in place; and, second, there is a fundamental disagreement between Terri's husband and her parents, two who normally would agree. There is also a disagreement among medical experts.

Now, where do we make disagreements when there are disagreements with irreversible life-changing decisions? A court of law. What court? Depends on the case. Does Congress have the authority? Absolutely. Article I, Section 8 and Article III, section 1 give Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of Federal courts, and that is what we are doing here tonight.

Ideally, decisions are made among families. When loved ones disagree, our society strongly, strongly believes in individual rights and that they must be preserved. That is why all State death penalty cases get a final review in Federal court, and that is all that is being asked here.

As I sat in church this morning, I struggled with this and I prayed. I prayed for a lowering of the rhetoric. I prayed for a decrease in the emotion. This is not a clear-cut case. This is an extremely difficult case, and I ask my colleagues for caution. It is right and just that we have a final set of eyes, objective, nascent and responsible eyes, review the case and provide that final cautious review. It is our responsibility to ensure that right.