Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, more than 260,000 jobs were created last month making February the 21st straight month in which we have seen steady job gains. Companies are hiring more and more these days. More people are now collecting well-earned paychecks rather than unemployment checks. However, companies here in the U.S. are facing competition from around the globe, and to ensure economic prosperity over the long run we must be competitive in the world. To do this we have to address corporate tax rates.

Why do we penalize American companies for keeping their business here in the U.S.? Why are companies leaving America to go overseas? Should we not be trying to attract businesses rather than drive them away?

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. corporate tax rate is a whopping 40 percent. For every $10 a company earns, $4 has to be sent to the IRS. It is no wonder businesses are taking a look at moving out

of the country. Our tax code is literally sucking jobs right out of the economy by depriving our businesses of the money that should be invested in hiring.

Only one other country, Japan, taxes its companies more than we, only one other country. Mr. Speaker, clearly that is not the road we want to travel and it is not the way we want to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, only 3 years from now, the first baby boomers will start collecting retirement benefits from Social Security, and for these people the system has worked very well, but when our children and grandchildren get set to retire, the only thing that will greet them is frustration, grief and heartache at what we did today or, better yet, what we did not do to fix Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I have practiced medicine for over 20 years, and I know that in order to treat the right disease you have got to make the right diagnosis, and the right diagnosis for the Social Security system is that we are on an unsustainable course. The right treatment is to fix the problem today rather than passing the problem on to future generations.

If we continue to postpone solutions, our only alternatives will be large tax increases or significant benefit reductions.

The goal of our ongoing discussion is not to pin blame on anyone. The goal is to have a system that will work for our children and our grandchildren, one that is stable, funded and secure.

A Social Security system that was designed for the world of 1935 will not work for the world of 2035 and beyond. Changes must be made, and the sooner we act the more secure we all will be.

Mr. Speaker, America's checkbook is being used and abused every minute of every day, and this is more than annoying to taxpayers. It is an insult.

The problems with financial management in the bureaucracy here in Washington cost hardworking taxpayers billions of dollars. Too often, money that comes to Washington never gets back home because it is eaten away by waste, fraud, and abuse.

When the Federal Government cannot account for over $17 billion it spent in 2001, things need to change.

When the Department of Agriculture recently was unable to account for $5 billion in receipts and expenditures, things need to change.

When the U.S. General Accounting Office will not certify the Federal Government's own accounting books because the bookkeeping is so bad, things definitely need to change.

Mr. Speaker, there are countless stories about how the government has not correctly paid on everything from Medicare to food stamps, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

As we discuss ways to reduce spending and to increase savings, let us get serious about waste, fraud, and abuse.

It is important to remember that our government of the people, for the people is paid for by the people. It is time to stop wasting the people's money.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security was an innovative program back in 1940 when the first Social Security recipient, Ida May Fuller, opened her mailbox to find a check from Uncle Sam. To Americans back then, the Social Security program was a dream come true and real security.

For every Ida May Fuller, there were 42 younger workers contributing to their retirement; 42 workers for every retiree.

Now let us fast forward to today. Under the current system, your payroll taxes are immediately used to pay the benefits for today's retirees. This pay-as-you-go system works when many people are paying in and fewer are collecting benefits.

But today seniors are living longer and collecting more benefits. As a result, there are fewer workers paying into the system per retiree; 3.3 to be exact. And in the near future, there will be fewer than two workers per retiree.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not fix the system now, the only thing our children and grandchildren will receive in their mailbox is a giant IOU. Let us work together to provide real security for all Americans. The time to act is now.

Mr. Speaker, as a physician and an orthopedic surgeon for over 20 years, I have seen hemophilia countless times. What is hemophilia? It is a hereditary disease which makes it so blood does not clot. Small wounds and punctures are usually not a problem, but larger wounds or uncontrolled internal bleeding can result in pain, swelling, permanent damage or even death.

The CDC has a program, Prevention's Hereditary Blood Disorders. And it serves as the frontline for treatment for bleeding and clotting disorders with a national network of over 140 hemophilia treatment centers.

Study after study has shown that these centers work extremely well. Mortality and morbidity rates have declined by 40 percent.

Mr. Speaker, these hemophilia treatment centers are vital for patients and for the medical community. They have a strong record of success that has a foundation of over 30 years of experience, and it continues to grow every day. We need to do everything we can to make certain that Americans continue to receive this access to quality care.

Madam Speaker, many people may be asking, why are we bringing the topic of Social Security to the kitchen tables of the American family?

Well, maybe it is because Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, with today's workers paying to support today's retirees. But each year, there are more people retiring and not enough additional workers to support them. Maybe it is because, if Social Security is not updated, it will cost all of us $10 trillion, an amount just slightly larger than the entire U.S. economy today.

Maybe it is because, in the 1950s, there were 16 workers paying for every retiree. And, today, there are about three, and soon there will only be two to support each and every person on Social Security.

One thing is crystal clear. The Social Security system as we know it is broken and needs to be fixed. It amazes me that so many people from across the aisle believe that a 70-year-old program will be just fine if we leave it as is.

Madam Speaker, our current Social Security system is well past retirement age. Let us put politics behind us and provide America with solutions rather than sound bites that make the 11 o'clock news.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and it really is a pleasure to join him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others who are talking about something that is so incredibly important to every single American, and that is their health.

I know we are talking about patient safety, but I want to put a little different spin on patient safety. I want to put it in a little different light. Because I know, as my colleagues do, that if you cannot find a hospital that is open or if you cannot find a doctor's office, then you cannot be safe in your health care. So I want to talk a little bit about the access to health care and what is the dynamic going on that is limiting drastically, drastically, the access that so many individuals in our great State, but also our Nation as well, have to health care.

I want to point out some of this information just to start: Georgia is no different than the vast majority of States in this Nation, and this report came recently from the Georgia Board of Physician Workforce. What that workforce does is it reviews the entire State and looks at where doctors are practicing, where hospitals are open, how many beds they have and the like, and how capable they are of delivering the care that is needed by our citizens.

What they found recently is that 11 Georgia hospitals have closed since 1999. Eleven hospitals have closed. Ones does not think about that happening. If it is in your community, though, it is an incredibly important thing for not just the economic vitality of your community but for the health and well-being of your citizens.

Four percent of Georgia physicians will leave the State or quit medical practice in the coming year. This was asking, what is going to happen to your practice over this next year? Four percent. A remarkable number. And 11 percent of Georgia physicians will stop taking emergency room coverage.

Now, I believe that the crux of the liability crisis that has been talked about tonight and that, I think, is very real and incredibly important, but it is not important because of the amount of money that physicians have to pay for their malpractice insurance. It is important because, when that cost goes up, this is the consequence: Hospitals close; doctors quit doing certain procedures because they cannot afford the insurance to cover that, or they simply close their office. And when that happens, what is the real result? The real result is that patients cannot have access to the kind of quality care that they need and that they deserve.

So I want to touch on a few very specific issues that are certainly true in our State, and I know them to be true around the Nation because, as I mentioned, Georgia is not any different than any other State.

We have a number of different specialties that are more at risk than others, but any time you upset or kind of break that chain of quality care that is being delivered to a patient, any time a patient cannot get the specialists they need or the kind of doctor they need, then that individual, that patient's health care is compromised. They are not as safe in their health care. So I want to talk about a few specialists that I know who are having significant problems, and I will point out what they are no longer doing or are not

able to do because of the liability crisis.

For example, in our State, nearly 40 percent, nearly 40 percent of the radiologists in our State are no longer performing high-risk procedures. So you say, well, what is a high-risk procedure? Must be something that endangers the patient's life; right, immediately? Well, in fact, that is not the case. For radiologists, mammograms are high- risk procedures. Mammograms are high-risk procedures. Something that is a preventive health care measure is a high-risk procedure.

Now, why is that? The reason is that the technology that goes into performing a mammogram and reading a mammogram is not perfect. There is about a 10 percent error rate. If you get the best radiologist in the world reading mammograms, that individual will only be correct in his or her interpretation about 90 percent of the time, which means there is about a 10 percent error rate because of the limitation of the test itself.

Now, that means if a radiologist is performing 25 or 30 mammograms in a given day, two or three of those interpretations is not going to be correct. And so the radiologist, 40 percent of the radiologists nearly in our State, and I know it is true around the Nation as well, have said, look, I cannot expose my family to that liability, and the only thing I can do from a personal standpoint is say, I am sorry, I cannot do mammograms any longer.

Now, what does that mean? It does not necessarily limit that individual's livelihood significantly, but what it does mean for that community is that the women of that community no longer have access to appropriate preventive health care in the form of a mammogram. And it is not just true of radiologists, though I think you get the connection between when the cost of insurance goes up, that the important thing is not the cost of the insurance to the physician; the important thing is that we are limiting access to quality care for patients.

A pathologist is another classic example. Pap smears that pathologists interpret, many of them, it is approaching again that same number, 30 to 40 percent of pathologists will no longer interpret Pap smears. Because, again, that error rate, that inherent error rate because of the limitation of the technology itself, does not allow them to interpret that with the reliability that is appropriate or that does not expose them to significant problems or significant liability.

So they say, well, the only option that I have is to no longer read Pap smears. Again, what is the consequence of that? It is that women no longer have somebody who is able to perform that preventive test for them.

I know that neurosurgeons were mentioned earlier, and I want to talk a bit about that because it is an extremely important issue. My district is all northern suburban Atlanta. I have a number of hospitals in my district. It is a grand place to live. It is a great place to work and play, and it has wonderful health care provided to it, except that there are hospitals within my district and very, very close to me in the center of Atlanta or around the environs of Atlanta, who no longer have the emergency room coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week of a neurosurgeon. Now, the consequences of that is not that it hurts the hospital; the consequence is that it harms patients.

I believe that the amount of safety for patients that is being compromised because of the liability crisis that we have is not even being measured because it is not recordable. I will use an example that I know to be true.

There was a gentleman in his mid-40s who fell and hit his head. So he went to the hospital. He drove himself to the emergency room. And when he was in the emergency room, his clinical course or his health status deteriorated, and he became unconscious. The hospital did not have a neurosurgeon on call that night because of the liability crisis. So what is the hospital to do? They have to put him in an ambulance and move him to a hospital that has a neurosurgeon available.

The problem in this case is that that individual died on the way to the hospital. On the way to that second hospital. Now, this is a healthy gentleman who just had a fall. He had a significant injury, obviously, but the treatment for that injury is what is called a burr hole, which means you relieve the pressure on the brain where the bleeding is. And the vast majority of individuals not only survive; they recover 100 percent.

That individual's safety, health and life were compromised because of the liability crisis that we have in this Nation. That death will never be recorded as one that fits any of the statistics that people are talking about because it will be attributed to a traumatic fall. It will not be attributed to a liability crisis. Nowhere on that record will you find that the original hospital did not have a neurosurgeon available.

So these are the consequences of the incredible liability crisis that we have right now. Again, the problem is not that doctors are having to pay too much; the problem is that patients are losing their access to quality care.

Let me just review a couple of these slides, and then I would look forward to hearing some of the comments again from my colleagues. I mentioned this Georgia Board of Physician Workforce study that they did. This shows that 17.8 percent of Georgia physicians will stop providing high-risk procedures. You know what a high-risk procedure is for an OB doctor? Delivering a baby. Delivering a baby is a high-risk procedure. And so 17.8 percent of Georgia physicians will stop that, again, not because they forgot how to deliver a baby; not because they forgot how to perform the procedure or to read the tests, but because they cannot do it with the current liability crisis. We talked about the issue of radiologists as well.

The consequence of that is that more than 10 percent of the obstetricians in the State of Georgia, more than 10 percent, quit delivering babies over the last 18 months. That is a huge, huge consequence, which, again, is a decrease in the quality of care that is available to patients all across our State and, frankly, all across our Nation.

Let me close with just three very specific examples. A good friend of mine, and my colleague from Georgia knows him as well, Frank Kelly, an orthopedic surgeon who practiced for 25 years. He is in the prime of his career. He ought to be able to practice for another 10 or 15 year. A very, very highly-qualified orthopedic surgeon in the middle of our State who quit practice. Quit practice.

The reason was not that he did not have a passion for it any more. The reason was not that he had forgotten what he was supposed to do when he came to office. The reason was the liability crisis in our Nation.

Another example. Atlanta pediatric neurosurgeon, and we only have eight in the State, left the State last March, left the State because of the liability crisis.

Again, in Marietta, where my colleague and I, where we both share adjacent districts, a 52-year-old general surgeon we both know well, performed 80 surgeries a month. That is the level of his practice. That is how qualified he was and how much the patients and citizens of our districts love him. He, at 52 years old, again, this is somebody who ought to be in the prime of his career and providing excellent high- quality care to citizens in our districts, had to quit the practice of medicine because of the incredible liability crisis. And that is an individual who had no claims; had never been sued. But because of the increasing liability crisis and the increase in cost, he was no longer able to do that.

I simply want to close by just thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for their wonderful leadership on this issue, the patient safety issue, which encompasses so many things. I hope we continue to talk about it and make certain that we work with our colleagues and push them just as hard as we can on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, you know Social Security is quickly becoming social insecurity for millions of Americans approaching retirement. Let us take a step back for a moment and take the politics and the pundits and rhetoric out of the debate, and let us examine the most overlooked aspect of what has been discussed thus far, the facts.

Fact: Social Security is safe for today's seniors, but is in serious danger for our children and our grandchildren. Fact: since the 1950s, the number of retirees has been rising faster than the number of workers. And fact: without reforms, Social Security is not sustainable in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, the system is not in crisis; the system is not in limbo. The system which worked well for many, many years is now broken.

Payroll taxes have been raised 20 times since the 1930s to keep the system functioning, and that is no longer an option. Soon Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, if things continue the way they are, there will be no security for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, America's Social Security system has been described with nearly every word in the dictionary: crisis, problem, trouble, bankruptcy. One can play the semantics game with Social Security all

they want, but the fact of the matter is that Social Security is broken and needs fixing.

Back in 1935 the system worked well. Retirement age back then was 65 and the average life expectancy 63. A pretty good deal for the government. Today, however, Americans are living longer than ever and far more likely to live long enough to get their benefits.

Social Security is not a savings plan. It is a pay-as-you-go system where today's workers support today's retirees and tomorrow's workers support tomorrow's retirees. The number of workers supporting each retiree was 42 when the program started. It is now three, with the payroll taxes on the paychecks of hard-working Americans going up 600 percent over the time when it gets to two.

Just in 3 years, 2008, the government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. It does not take a math whiz to understand that the pay-as-you-go system will not provide retirement security for American workers.

Mr. Speaker, it is a problem and must be resolved. I urge my colleagues to join me in solving it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the gentleman from California for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat perplexed and disappointed by the tactics from the other side. This is serious business, and simply working to divide our citizens I believe to be counterproductive.

This bill, this bill, will enhance employment; it will increase employment and job retention, plus increase the overall skill level of our labor force. Now, the demagoguery that you hear from the other side on this issue, and, frankly, on every issue, seemingly every issue, frankly is a disservice to this debate and does a disservice to our Nation.

This bill gets more resources to the individual needing it. That is a good thing.

These are very challenging times for many in our workforce. They need more options for assistance, not a one-size-fits-all model or program. Streamlining the one-stop career center system is easier for the client. That is a good thing. It does not harm the Wagner-Peyser money. There are no lost resources.

Greater flexibility in the delivery of core, intensive, and training services allows individuals to receive the most appropriate services specifically for them. That is a good thing. Providing Personal Reemployment Accounts allows those who are unemployed an opportunity to use money for those things that are often that final hurdle to getting a new job, child care, transportation, housing assistance. That is a good thing. Getting more resources to those most in need when they are out of school helps those without other opportunities, and that is a good thing.

Faith-based language in this bill is identical, identical, to four separate pieces of legislation passed during the Clinton administration. There is no discrimination on the provision of services.

With this legislation, we are actively and positively addressing how the Federal Government, and ultimately how each and every citizen, will come together and lend a helping hand to those needing that assistance at a very pivotal time. That is a good thing.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and move forward in helping those needing to return to the workforce. This is a good thing.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again on this, and I am astounded, frankly, at the level of misinformation that is coming from the other side.

I think it is important to look at the bill specifically as it defines youth. The definition of youth has changed.

The age for when an individual is considered a youth has changed. Currently it is 14 to 21 years. In the bill, it would change it from 16 to 24 years. What that means is that we have more individuals out of school, out of school, who require assistance. And that is one of the reasons the provision is in the bill to change it, so that more individuals out of school will have greater opportunity to access those monies.

It is also important to appreciate this is a Department of Labor program. The Department of Education has a phenomenal number of programs eligible for in-school youth that really dwarfs the amount of money for the out-of-school individuals, 15 to 1 by my count. Some of those programs are title I grants to improve education for the disadvantaged, neglected and delinquent grants to local educational agencies, 21st Century Learning Centers, Safe and Drug-free Schools and community State grants, Bilingual Education Instructional Services, Dropout Prevention Grants, and on and on and on, Striving Readers Grant and Vocational Technical Education.

In summary, no one, no one is decreasing the amount of money to in- school youth for the concerns and the issues that they have. What we are doing is making it so that this bill addresses those individuals that are most in need.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity once again to speak on this, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The misunderstandings and confusion and frankly the hyperbole is phenomenal coming out of the other side. No one, no one, is encouraging faith-based institutions to discriminate with the language in this bill.

Sometimes I think it is helpful to go back to the original language. We have had a lot of reference to title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. What it says specifically is ``This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of,'' et cetera. It does not say anything about the source of the money. Nothing. There is no mention of the source.

There has been some discussion about previous language that many Members on the other side of the aisle have adopted in previous bills, four pieces of legislation under the Clinton administration. President Clinton himself said that no discrimination with employment in the bills that were adopted, and we have heard about them, the welfare reform, the community renewal tax relief, Community

Services Block Grant, substance abuse. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) himself said that there has been no discrimination since 1965.

Well, the exact identical language in this bill was in those. If there is this incredible occurrence that is happening out there with this remarkable discrimination, where are the examples under those bills? Where are the examples of discrimination under those bills that have exactly the same language as this bill that we are promoting here?

I urge my colleagues to oppose this and to be certain, to be certain, there is no intent or desire on anybody on this side of the aisle to encourage discrimination by faith-based institutions.

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, our Nation's courts were a place where Americans were able to seek justice. Today, however,

the system has become a playground for personal injury trial lawyers as they file sham, abusive cases in lawsuit-friendly counties. And all too often the attorneys collect multimillion-dollar settlements for themselves, while their clients, the real victims, get left with nothing more than a coupon, often worth nothing more than the paper upon which it is printed.

Recently, a large national video rental chain, after being named in 23 class-action lawsuits, agreed to provide consumers in the lawsuit with dollar coupons, and attorneys in this case received over $9 million.

Even more outrageous is the case where consumers were awarded 33 cents each in a settlement with a well-known national bank, not even enough to buy a stamp, while attorneys in the case walked away with $4 million.

Mr. Speaker, this amount of money distorts the incentives for personal injury lawyers. They no longer represent their clients; they become coplaintiffs. It is past time we did something about it. That is why we should return commonsense justice to the American people by passing S.5, The Class Action Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with honor and with reverence to pay tribute to a patriot and a hero, Private First Class Jesus Fonseca, 19 years old, of Marietta, Georgia, who died on January 17 in Iraq. He was killed when a car bomb detonated near his position.

He was assigned to the Second Infantry Division based at Camp Casey in South Korea. And prior to enlisting, he was a graduate of Sprayberry High School in my district. He was a mindful young man who earned the respect of his peers and his elders.

It should also be told that this young man was not born in the United States, yet was courageous enough to give his life for our great Nation. Too often, inspirational stories of sacrifice, like Jesus's, are not properly recognized.

He is survived by his wife, his parents, and five siblings. Our hearts and prayers go out to them and everyone in our community affected by this tragic loss.

It is a reminder that we are all indebted to the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces, for it is their exemplary spirit of service, evidenced by Private First Class Jesus Fonseca, which makes this country so noble and so great.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to join my colleagues who have spoken this evening about this incredibly important topic. The gentleman mentioned that I am a physician. Mr. Speaker, we are all prisoners of our education and our training; and as a medical doctor, I know that you cannot treat the right disease unless you make the right diagnosis, and public policy should not be any different. We should not be making policy here in Washington without a specific aim, and this is especially true for the big challenges that we have before us, and Social Security is indeed one of those.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about principles, and I think it is extremely important to outline what those principles are. I would just like to kind of review those, because this is not about Social Security; it really is about retirement security, retirement security for every one of us. We all want to be sure that our golden years are golden, that a secure retirement is available to all Americans.

Now, what should those principles be? What kind of principles should we keep in mind? Well, first and foremost, I think it is important that we say that it is a promise and we recognize that it is a promise. I believe that Social Security is not just a government-run program, or a government program; that it is more of a safety net. And it is more than a safety net; it is a solemn promise. It is a solemn promise by the United States, by all of us, to generations of hard-working Americans. Washington took money from your paycheck your entire life, and they made a promise to return that money to you upon your retirement. It is a promise.

The second principle is peace of mind. Current retirees and those nearing retirement deserve peace of mind, knowing that they will receive full benefits for their entire retirement. There should be no change for those currently retired. They need that peace of mind.

Third, we have heard mention tonight about generational fairness. It is imperative that we save and secure Social Security so that our children and our grandchildren receive the same benefits we have enjoyed. Generational fairness is imperative.

Another principle: it should not be partisan. When it comes to the retirement of tens of millions of Americans, there are not any Democrats and there are not any Republicans; there are only Americans. And those Americans, they are counting on us to work together and do what is right for the current generation now receiving benefits, for the next generation who are paying those benefits, and for future generations who are now just entering the workforce.

Finally, all Americans, we have to remember here that it is your money, that it is your future, and that it is your life.

So it is a promise. We all deserve peace of mind; there ought to be generational fairness. It should not be partisan, and it is your money. We all ought to agree on those principles.

Now, with these principles in place, what are the facts? What is that correct diagnosis that I talked about earlier? There are those who believe that Social Security is not broken and that we can continue down this path with only a few minor adjustments. Now, most of us who are interested in honest solutions to the challenges before us do not believe that. In fact, as we have heard tonight, even President Bill Clinton in an address in February of 1998 talked about ``the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.'' So it is very real, and we cannot ignore it.

Now, that correct diagnosis, the correct diagnosis is that Social Security is broken and must be fixed. Social Security is broken and must be fixed.

Now, our current situation is the product, I believe, of two things, two things: inertia and our changing demographics. There is an inherent inertia in government at any level. Once a program begins, it is tough to change it. We know that. It occurs at all levels of government, from local all the way up. Social Security is no different. It is

now 70 years old, and there has been a little tinkering, but no fundamental update or modernization. And boy, the world has changed in the past 70 years, has it not? Remarkably, too.

Seventy years ago, we were in the midst of the Great Depression. FDR was President; Babe Ruth hit his last three home runs in one game to set his career record; Elvis Presley was born 70 years ago. Seventy years ago Parker Brothers released the board game Monopoly, nylon was discovered, and the construction of the Hoover Dam was just completed. Seventy years was a long time ago.

Now, what about our demographics? What about our population? How have they changed? I think it is clear that when Social Security began, when it was first designed, it was for a different generation and a different America. There are at least four specific facts that have me convinced that that old system is no longer workable for our society. It is no longer secure.

First, our Nation has matured from a time when men were the majority of the workforce and the life expectancy was about 60 years old. I have always found that it is curious that when the Social Security program began, the benefits would begin for individuals at a point in time when the average individual would not even live to that date. Only Washington can institute a program like that and have folks continue to praise it.

Now, today, in the majority of households, both men and women are working, and our life expectancy is significantly over 70 years, so we are living longer, healthier lives, and that trend is only going to increase. Now, this is very good for all of us, but it is not good for our outdated Social Security system.

Second, when the system began 70 years ago, and we have heard this this evening as well, there were 41 workers for every retiree. I would like to have my colleagues think about these numbers: 41, 16, 3, and 2. When Social Security began, there were 41 workers for every retiree. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Now, there are about three workers for every person who has retired and in the not-too- distant future that number will be down to two. Now, those numbers just do not work. This is clearly unsustainable, and we cannot have our children and grandchildren punished, and that is what will happen if we do not act now.

Third, the baby boom generation is about to begin retiring; and when that happens, the program starts to have real problems. Now, when will they retire? Well, the average age of retirement is 62 years old, and the baby boomers began in 1946, so you do the math. Mr. Speaker, 1946 plus 62 adds up to 2008. That is 3 years away. 2008 is when the baby boomers begin to retire. Mr. Speaker, 2008. A child born today will not even be in kindergarten yet. So the problem is right around the corner.

Fourth, the return on your Social Security dollars that we have had today is frankly an embarrassment. A mere 2 percent and for many, even less than that, less than 2 percent. That is not enough to retire with a nest egg; that is not enough to retire with security. To me, the current system looks like a greater risk than trying an alternative approach. More retirees, fewer workers, less money.

Now, all of these are facts, and facts are the same regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. So the picture that we paint is not a very pretty picture. We must put the ``security'' back in Social Security.

I think it has been mentioned this evening but, Mr. Speaker, we know that with each passing year, each year that goes by where we do not fix Social Security, the bill to our children and our grandchildren increases by $600 billion. That is right; $600 billion for each year we do not do anything. Fixing Social Security is a matter of fairness, fairness for the current generation of retirees and fairness for generations to come.

So we ought to act now. The Social Security trustees, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the 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 all individuals and their families.

So I talked about those principles: promise, peace of mind, nonpartisan, generational fairness, and your money. These ought to be our principles. We should focus on the facts, study the issues and alternatives, vigorously debate it, and then act. Social Security has worked for decades and for generations, but this current system is outdated, and it does not meet the needs of you or of our society. It is not secure.

So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take the time now; let us get to work. I look forward to this discussion; and I urge all of us, all of us to make a commitment to themselves, to our children, and to our grandchildren to solve the current situation. Not acting now would be irresponsible, as would saying that there is no problem or that little needs to be done.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge this House, I urge the Senate, and I urge the President to work together to find a responsible and a secure solution. I thank the gentleman so much for allowing me to take part in this discussion this evening.