Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the objection. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman member I stood here with the rest of you two days ago taking an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I couldn't be more proud and humbled to be a Member of the finest deliberative body in the Nation. Having served four terms in my state Senate in Georgia in both the majority and minority--I have great respect for appropriate procedural objections. However, political grandstanding during this vital electoral college ballot count is shameful and reprehensible. What my new colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing today is destructive of our system. To raise an objection for which many speakers on the other side have said they will oppose--only feeds unfounded discontent in the veracity of our great democracy. I shall never lose my faith and pride in our great Nation and will fight vigorously and pray for our future at a time when some in the minority party put politics over people. God Bless America.