I am also especially honored that I could follow the esteemed majority leader to the floor. But for his leadership we would not be having this discussion now. And due to his leadership and his courage and his commitment to principle, this House is trying to make a stand, not just for the next election but for the next generation, because I think as more Americans become familiar with the challenges in Social Security, they will soon realize that if this House does not act and act now that Social Security as we know it will not be there for future generations. And, Mr. Speaker, we cannot look ourselves in the mirror and let that happen.

   And I not only speak for myself tonight, but I probably speak for many other Members of this body in saying that Social Security is more than just a run-of-the-mill congressional debate. It is something that is very personal to me because, Mr. Speaker, I have two parents who are in their 70s. Social Security is part of their retirement. My father worked all of his life paying into the system, and I feel a moral obligation not just as a Member of Congress but as a son to make sure that my parents receive every single penny of Social Security benefits that they paid for.

   So as we have this discussion about what can we do for future generations, every Member of this Congress I believe is committed to the proposition that for anybody who is receiving Social Security today, or will soon be receiving Social Security, nothing in the system is going to change. That is a matter of fairness. That is a matter of commitment that this Nation has made to its seniors. But not only do I feel a moral commitment to my parents; I have a moral commitment to two other people. And that happens to be my daughter, Claire, who is 3 years old; and my son, Travis, who is 18 months old. And again my wife, Melissa, and I realize that if this body does not do something that the retirement security that my parents enjoy will not be there for our children; and that is simply not fair, Mr. Speaker.

   Let me say that Social Security has indeed been a very important program in the history of America, and it has helped alleviate poverty for a number of seniors. It has given a lot of seniors peace of mind, but it is not a system that is based upon savings and investment. It is a system that takes funds from current workers to transfer to current retirees. That is a system that works well if we have a whole lot of workers and only a few retirees. And when Social Security was first created back in the 1930s, we had over 40 workers paying into a system to benefit every one retiree. As recently as 1950, that figure was down to only 16 workers paying into a system to benefit every one retiree. Today we are down to only 3.3 workers paying into a system for every one retiree. And today's younger workers are quickly on a road to see only two, two workers paying into a system for every one retiree. That presents incredible financial challenges to our Social Security system.

   And there is another challenge we have. There is another demographic trend that is great for seniors, but not so great for the Social Security system, and that is when Social Security was first created, the life span of an average American worker was 60 years of age. Due to the marvels of modern medicine and better technology, today the average life span of a worker has increased to 77. So again we have fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees, and these retirees are living longer and longer. The system cannot keep pace.

   So what has Congress done in the past? In many respects it has started to take the security out of Social Security. As time has gone by, taxes have increased. Many benefits have been cut. So as time goes by, we start to lose the security in Social Security. Social Security was a great deal for my grandparents, who were born in roughly 1900. When we look at what they put into the system versus what they took out, they received a 12 percent rate of return on their Social Security. That is great retirement security, Mr. Speaker. That is great retirement security.

   My parents who were born, my dad in the late 1920s, my mother in the early 1930s, they are receiving roughly a 4 percent rate of return on their Social Security. Not good, but not bad.

   My generation, represented by those born around 1960, we are going to receive only about a 2.5 percent rate of return. That is barely keeping pace with inflation, Mr. Speaker. And my children, represented by those who were born approximately in the year 2000, they could receive a negative rate of return. In other words, they may be putting more money into the system than they take out. That, Mr. Speaker, is when we lose the security that is in Social Security.

   So all of these financial pressures, where is this leading us? Unfortunately, it is soon going to lead us to a sea of red ink.

   There is some good news. The good news is as of today, Social Security is still running a surplus. But for those who can see the top of this chart here, just 3 years away, the surpluses in Social Security begin to decline. And in just 12 years, in the year 2017, we go from having surpluses to having deficits. In other words, in the year 2017, Social Security begins to go bankrupt. And as the years go by, the sea of red ink only gets larger and larger and larger and larger. And, Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a large sea of red ink.

   How large? The trustees of the Social Security trust fund tell us that is a $10.4 trillion sea of red ink that will simply drown the system, drown our children and grandchildren, if we do not act today.

   Mr. Speaker, we often hear large numbers tossed around in the Nation's capital and $10.4 trillion is a very large number. But let me try to relate that to a number that we can all understand. In other words, what the Social Security trustees are telling us is that if we wanted to balance the system and ensure that our children and grandchildren have the same retirement security that current retirees have, every man, woman, and child in America would have to write a check today to the Federal Government for over $34,000. That is almost a $150,000 check from a family of four to try to balance this system. Mr. Speaker, my guess is not many Americans would want to write out that $34,000 check tonight. So we are going to look at some other options.

   What are the options if we do not write out that check tonight to balance the system since we know we have fewer workers, more retirees, and they are living longer? If we do nothing, younger workers today who have just recently entered the workforce, those in their 20s, by the time they retire, they will have their Social Security benefits cut by a full third. How many seniors today could afford to have their Social Security benefits cut by a full third? So many seniors rely upon that Social Security. It is unconscionable. Is that the future we are going to leave our children and grandchildren?

Mr. Speaker, if for whatever reason we choose not to reduce benefits when we can use the least creative approach that has ever come out of Washington, D.C., and that is increase taxes, if we decide to try to solve this sea of red ink by raising taxes again, younger workers today will see their payroll taxes increase by 43 percent. I mean 43 percent, what a staggering tax increase on young families. I mean, what is that going to do for people who are trying to buy a home or start a family, and what is that going to do to job creation in America? It would be a crushing tax burden.

   But at the end of the day, there are only three options if we are going to save Social Security as we know it for future generations. We are either looking at a massive tax increase, we are looking at a massive benefit cut, or we are looking at something else that the President is leading on, and that is having something called a personal retirement account, something that is going to have real assets in it that people own, that families can create a nest egg with, their own nest egg that will grow over time, and using something that Albert Einstein once called the greatest discovery he ever made in his life, and that was compound interest. And I believe that that is the option that we should begin to look at as a Nation, personal saving accounts.

   And again I want to reiterate a couple of principles. No one is talking about changing Social Security. For those who are on Social Security tonight, those who are about to be on Social Security, we have a moral commitment to make sure that the system they worked on is there. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that as time goes by and more Americans will listen to this debate, I do not know of any grandparent in America who wants to deny their grandchildren equal retirement security and equal retirement opportunity that they have enjoyed.

   So I think it is critical that we turn to personal accounts so that younger workers on a voluntary basis, a total voluntary basis, will be able to put some money aside in an account that can grow over time. And I think what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are adding the best elements of Social Security to the best elements of a company pension plan. We are going to keep the government backing. Nobody is ever going to lose all their retirement security. The government backing, the social safety net, will always be there. We are going to have guaranteed lifetime benefits. We are going to have progressive benefits for lower-income workers. But to that we are going to add worker ownership so that workers can actually own a part of their Social Security. They will be invested in the length and breadth of the American economy, not in their brother-in-law's real estate deal or in 100 shares of Enron, but we are talking about pension-grade investments that over time have proven to be safe and yield a retirement security better than Social Security promises and cannot deliver.

   Some tonight would say, That sounds great but it sounds a little risky to me. The real risk is leaving one's retirement security in Washington because already Washington has raided the Social Security trust fund over 59 times, and they have spent that money for $75 million indoor rain forests, and they have spent it on $800,000 outhouses that do not even work and studies about how college students decorate their dorms. They spend it on a lot of things besides retirement security. There have been over 20 tax increases. And we started out taking 1 out of $50 for Social Security, now 1 out of 8. There have been multiple benefit cuts, declining rates of return, and no ownership rights.

    Mr. Speaker, the real risk in Social Security is leaving America's seniors' retirement security in the hands of Washington. Because of that, I want to applaud my colleague from North Carolina, who has made a great impact as a freshman Member, I want to applaud him for his leadership and speaking out not only for the current generation of retirees but future generations of retirees, represented by my children.