Bob Beauprez

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my appreciation for the services provided by the men and women of Intrado Inc., headquartered in Longmont, Colorado. For over two decades, telecommunications providers, public safety organizations and government agencies have turned to Intrado for their communications needs. As North America's leader in 9-1-1 infrastructure and services, Intrado's business was founded with the objective of improving public safety and we continue to have a tradition of giving back to the community. Intrado's corporate culture is built around employee involvement in causes that are both local and national in scope. From Intrado' s core business of 9-1-1 to the widely participated employee volunteer activities, Intrado aims to make a positive contribution to society. Intrado's ongoing mission is to continually improve the quality of the 9-1-1 data available to first responders, e.g. police, fire and emergency medical personnel. Since the first 9-1-1 call was made, Intrado has played a key role in defining, building and maintaining the complex emergency communications infrastructure. In 2004, Intrado products, services and systems supported nearly 200 million calls to 9- 1-1, and the volume continues to grow. Intrado emphasis on corporate citizenship is reflected in numerous activities. For the past two years Intrado has partnered with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to assist cities and towns across the US to deploy the Intrado IntelliCast' target notification system as a tool to help win the fight against time in locating missing children. Operating like 9-1-1 in reverse, the IntelliCast system automatically delivers a telephone message about a missing child to thousands of targeted homes and businesses within minutes, helping ensure the most efficient dissemination of relevant information to safely and quickly recover missing children. Intrado waives the fees for launching missing children alerts in an effort to support a community's need for quick action in those situations. Intrado's encouragement of community involvement and volunteerism has resulted in support for local food drives, assistance with armed forces care packages, and financial donations to a number of charitable efforts around the country. In addition, in 2004 Intrado began support of the 911 For Kids program in Denver and surrounding cities. 911 For Kids provides 9-1-1 education for children in elementary schools to ensure they know how to call for help in an emergency. Finally, Intrado is actively working to design and build the next generation emergency services network to address and support the changing communications requirements. Intrado's extensive intellectual property in emergency communications management and fundamental 9-1-1 operations--combined with the world's largest pool of experienced personnel in these areas--makes Intrado the clear leader for this task. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the fine men and women of Intrado, Inc. for working to make our communities safer and better places to live. They represent some of our country's best, and I hope they continue to call Colorado home for years to come.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the Speaker, as has already been acknowledged. It is his leadership that has brought this issue to the floor tonight, and again I commend him for that leadership. Mr. Speaker, there has been much said tonight, much eloquence on both sides, about this issue. I fear sometimes that in our effort to try to come to some sort of conclusion that we actually overthink an issue once in a while. We think just enough to get in the way of our common sense. I hope that is not the case here tonight. I believe fairly deeply that life does have a purpose. I lost my father 6 months and 6 days ago tonight. And in his very final days, he too needed to be fed by a tube. He needed help with his basic bodily functions, could not get out of his bed, could not take care of himself. But in the 56 years of life I have been granted, Mr. Speaker, I shared the most intimate, the most profound moment I ever had with my father about 36 hours before he passed away, after he could no longer speak, after he could no longer feed himself or care for himself in almost any manner at all. He communicated with his eyes, and he communicated with a hand on my forehead in the most profound way imaginable. I would have regretted deeply had I been denied that moment, and I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, that my father would have regretted having been denied that moment as well. Outside this Chamber there is a statue of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was the one, of course, who told us about those inalienable rights, those rights that cannot be taken away from us by anyone, those rights that come from our Creator. Those rights, of course, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think if we are going to make mistakes, and God knows certainly that we make mistakes, we are human, but if we are going to make mistakes let us err on the side of life, not denying life but granting life and giving every opportunity to that.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address this House and the people of the United States of America on a very, very timely subject: Social Security and, more specifically, the opportunity to reform Social Security. Now, recently, the President, President Bush, has been given a whole lot of credit, or blame, whichever your perspective may be, for even bringing this issue to the forefront of the American people and to this body. I have the pleasure of serving on the Committee on Ways and Means of this House of Representatives; and, of course, it is going to be the obligation of the Committee on Ways and Means to deal with this issue and try to bring some consensus to the subject of how we might reform, fix, strengthen Social Security, an institution that has served generations of America very, very well, going back to the era of just post the Great Depression when my parents were just about to enter the working environment themselves as young adults. So we do this with some degree of trepidation, but we also do it with a considerable sense of obligation to our children; in my case, a grandson now, knowing that an entitlement program such as Social Security that is especially critical to the survival, and I say that word advisedly, survival of so many of our senior citizens and especially the lower-income members of our senior citizen population who absolutely rely on Social Security for their very sustenance, we should pass that benefit, that promise of America on to our children's generation and all generations to come. That is not an easy challenge, as we are going to talk about in the time I have had allotted to me tonight. Now, as I said at the beginning, at the outset, President Bush seems to get a tremendous amount of credit these days for bringing this to our attention. If the truth be known, President Bush was not the first one to point this out. In fact, if we go back to the very beginning, Franklin Roosevelt himself, often called the Father of Social Security, told us then that the plan put in place, the plan we are still on, was but a starting point, was but a beginning; that it would not be sustainable, nor adequate, forever; that at some point in the future, he even used the word ``annuity,'' an annuity would have to be created, a prefunded liability, a prefunded liability set aside to augment Social Security, because Social Security was never going to be adequate for the entire challenge in front of us. Now, in addition, and much more recently than Franklin Roosevelt, our last President, the 42nd President of the United States, Bill Clinton, recognized the challenge in front of us and the obligation in front of us to reform Social Security. Now, President Clinton, as this poster to my left says, President Clinton in his State of the Union address in January 1998 said: ``We will hold a White House conference on Social Security in December. And one year from now, we will convene the leaders of Congress to craft historic, bipartisan legislation to achieve a landmark for our generation: a Social Security system that is strong in the 21st century.'' Bill Clinton. President Clinton appointed that commission, and it was headed by Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. President Clinton, just a month later, in February of 1998 also had these words to say at an address at nearby Georgetown University: So that all of these achievements, these achievements meaning 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. President Clinton said that. Now, recently, very recently, President Bush has been attacked for even suggesting that there is a problem, perhaps even a crisis with Social Security. I submit to my colleagues again that President Clinton certainly thought that there was, and I say to my colleagues I certainly think that there is as well. We will talk about that in the next little while. How was Social Security established? Well, again, when my parents were young adults back in the mid- to late 1930s, coming out of the Depression, I am sure that in this very same Chamber, Members of the House of Representatives, led by a directive from President Roosevelt, felt an obligation to some of our seniors that were struggling; and coming out of the Depression, I am quite certain times truly were tough. And this great Nation wanted to be there for those that needed us the most and had every right to ask for a bit of a helping hand so that they might have dignity in their last days. So Social Security became the program to provide just a little bit of support to maintain that dignity as people lived out their last days. When it was established in the beginning, there was but a 2 percent tax placed on the first $3,000 of income a worker had. Now, there are a couple of other little details that are of fairly great significance. Back when it was established, for every beneficiary, every individual who received a Social Security benefit, there was about 42, 43 workers that paid the tax that created the immediate revenue to provide the benefit to that one worker, about a 42 to 1 ratio. By 1950, shortly after I was born, demographics had changed and there were but 16 workers to pay for one beneficiary. Even today, we have barely three workers paying for one beneficiary. And by the time my children approach their retirement, there will be barely two workers to pay for one beneficiary. Now a couple of other little details, and fairly significant and important details, is back in the beginning when Social Security was established, the retirement age, the age when one was eligible for benefits was established at 65. Now, today, we think that that is pretty generous, makes sense. That is when people typically retire, a little bit earlier, a little bit later, about 65. But, of course, the interesting little fact back in the late 1930s was that the average life expectancy was only about 60. So most people, before they even reached the age of 65, the eligible age for the benefit, had passed on. Those that did survive typically did not live nearly as long as we all live today; thankfully, I certainly plan to. So there were not as many living in retirement, and they were not living nearly as long. Today, of course, life expectancy is closer to 80. There is a whole lot more of us and, again, far fewer people paying that benefit. That really is the essence of the challenge in front of us. Some would have you believe that this is some great debate about public policy differences, very different views of the world, maybe the left spectrum, the right spectrum of the political debate going on here. I do not think it is. Frankly, I think it is pretty much a case of arithmetic. The numbers are in front of us. And the challenge is a result of the changing demographics. There are a couple of other things that I think we need to have in front of us in our minds as we approach this debate, just simple little facts. Now, this chart shows current time, 2004, current year, last year; and the revenue that comes into the system, into Social Security, is marked on this line. You will note that the zero indicates the break-even point. In other words, this is the benefits; this is over time. And right now indicated in black is the surplus. So we have more money coming into the system than there is going out. That is a good situation. You can pay your bills if you are running your house that way. That is a great opportunity. But, very shortly, things are going to start to change. You will notice, in 2008, about right here, instead of a growing surplus, the line goes the other direction and continues in that direction. Why does that happen? Because in 2008, the very first of the baby boomers, those born in 1946, turn 62. And under the current system, you are eligible for early retirement at age 62 and start drawing benefits. In other words, you change from being a payor into the system to a payee, receiving the benefits. And current statistics tell us that about 55 percent of our people opt for early retirement. So with that big wash of baby boomers coming at us here very shortly in 2007, the whole workforce, the whole demographic is about to change on us, to where we begin that decline of a growing surplus of revenue, more revenue coming into the system than we have benefits going out. And we begin the decline. In 2018, the actuaries tell us at Social Security, this point, revenue actually is less than revenue coming into the system, is less than the obligation of the benefit. Now, many say that, you know, what is that problem? Is it a problem? Is it a crisis? Well, I do not know about the world you all live in, but in my household, when your expenses exceed your income, it is a crisis. And there seems to be a huge debate going on out there, is it a problem? Is it a crisis? Is it bankrupt? Is it insolvent? I submit to you, when you do not have enough money to pay the bills, you have got a real problem on your hands, and that is what we are facing very, very shortly. In addition to that, I want to stay in kind of current time frame here, at this point, at 2008, when those first baby boomers start to retire, here is the other impact we are going to have to deal with right here in this chamber, the United States House of Representatives, in charge of the revenue and the paying of the bills for the United States of America right here. We know we are in a deficit situation today. I submit to you that all Members on both sides of the aisle in this chamber, Democrat, Republicans alike, are concerned about our deficit spending. Think about this, folks: When we begin this decline, yes, that surplus as indicated in black, we have been living on that for a long, long time. We have been paying the bills of this great Nation: We have been paying for our veterans benefits; we have been paying for Medicare; we have been paying for education; we have been doing the great projects of this great Nation, the United States of America. We have been running the country on that. Now, we will talk some more later about whether that is good or bad public policy, but it is a fact of life and Democratic administrations, Republican administrations, Democratic Members of the House when they were in the majority, Republican Members of the House when they were in the majority, have done exactly the same thing. And here is why: Because if we did not use that to pay the bills, we are either going to have to drastically reduce the bills we pay, in other words cut programs, or we are going to have to go borrow even more money. It has got to come from someplace. And it has been coming from that black part of this graph. So as that decline begins, as that line starts to turn down, and we have less of a growing surplus, we have got to go get the rest of the money to run this Government from some place. And as you can see, the part that is in red, we not only lose the surplus, we start getting into a situation where fairly rapidly, this is just 2002 right here, by 2040, which is about the time, one side or the other, where my four kids are going to be retiring, by about 2040, we have got a serious problem on our hands. This is the deficiency between the money coming into Social Security from taxes and the benefit going out. That is not the total obligation; that is just the deficit, just the deficit on an annual basis between the money coming into the system and the money going out. And, again, in addition to that, we do not have, at this point, any given year, we will not have the benefit of this surplus that we have been living on until now to pay the additional bills of this country. Well, some say, go to the bonds, go to the trust fund, the Social Security Trust Fund. Give me just a minute on that. This is the way it works. And again, this is not devious. This is not some scheme that this administration or this majority cooked up. This is the way the system has worked for a long time. Republicans, Democrats, this administration, that administration, this is how it works. By law, when you have got a surplus, the Government is obligated to sell those bonds; basically sell them to themselves because we write them. They are a special bond; they are not a bond like you take out on the street corner and sell to individuals or pension funds or even other nations. We sell them to ourselves. It has been referred to as an IOU, and in fairness, I think that is a pretty good analogy, because the Federal Government is saying we are going to take this money, we are going to pay all of the other bills, and that is why it is gone. But as evidence that it is a debt back to ourselves, the Federal Government, we are going to write a bond, a loan, if you will. We are going to sign it, U.S. Government promises to pay the United States Government so many billion dollars and trillions of dollars, and it earns interest. So we think, well, that is great. Let us just go to that drawer in West Virginia, open it up and cash in those bonds, and we will pay all of those with those bonds, will we not? Where do we get the cash to redeem the bonds? From the tax revenue that comes into the United States Treasury year after year. And, folks, we have been using that money. We will use that money in the future to pay all of the other bills of the Federal Government. It is a classic take it from the right hand and put it into the left. Now, that may seem like a subtlety, it is not a subtlety. It is a very important fact to remember. Yes, there are bonds, and yes, I guess, technically in a way, there is a trust fund. But it is the Federal Government, the U.S. Government, promising itself that it will pay itself back with its own money from the taxpayers, with interest. Some choose to look at this thing in complete isolation of every other part of the Federal Government and say, oh, no, we can go out to 75 years. And if you do the math and are a little bit generous in your assumptions and you take all of the money that will come into the system and all of the bonds that will be created and add to that the interest earned, you can pay the bills. And you can for quite a while. Not forever, but for quite a while. But, what happens is you dry up almost all of the rest of the government to do it. Because that deficit has to come from some place. And by taking the cash to close that deficit from all other programs and services in this country, most of which are on a growth curve themselves, by the way, you might sustain Social Security for a while longer, but at what price? That is what we are dealing with in this chamber, and we are going to have some tough choices to make. I am joined in this Special Order by a good friend of mine, a new colleague from the great State of Texas (Mr. Conaway). And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) comes to this chamber, as many do, with considerable credentials himself, having had more than just a little bit of experience in the financial world. And it is a pleasure to have you with me tonight on this very important subject.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman because I think he has made one of the key points in this whole debate and one that, frankly, frustrates me a little bit having been a community banker before I came to this Chamber. We do not hear enough talk about the difference between a funded and unfunded liability. And I completely agree with the gentleman. The promise has been made. The liability is on our books. I know we do not show it that way. We do not draw up the balance sheet of the United States of America quite the way that the private sector is familiar with seeing balance sheets drawn up. But the liability is there. The gentleman is here in this Chamber just like I am, and I have told people that I cannot in my wildest dreams comprehend that there is going to be some future Congress that will say, oh, well, we have a problem. We are a little short on cash. We are just going to whack your benefits, because I think most of us like our heads attached to our shoulders. If we whack benefits, we would get our head lopped off, and probably should. The gentleman is absolutely correct, and I commend him again. The liability is ours. The promise has been made. The challenge in front of us is to come up with the most fiscally responsible way of funding, paying for that liability.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I believe he has brought some clarity to the issue. The gentleman mentioned a point that needs to be made over and over again, that is, for current retirees, the seniors that are out there I hope listening to what we are saying this evening on the floor here at the House, seniors today, current beneficiaries have absolutely nothing to worry about. We have got the money there. We can pay the bills. They are going to keep getting their checks. Nobody is talking about even touching them. Quite the opposite, making sure that they are not touched, not damaged in the least. We are not taking a thing away. And near-term retirees, like me, I am 56. I certainly do not want anybody messing with the benefit that I hope to have there and expect to have there and will be there, because the money is there. The gentleman is absolutely right. It is about our kids, in my case my one grandchild so far. I am working on more. I am dropping those hints, and the gentleman's six and future generations as well. I think one of the challenges in front of us, and I have certainly heard this on my committee work on the Committee on Ways and Means from the Social Security actuaries. Yesterday we had the Comptroller General in front of us, David Walker, and he said, you guys can play with it a little here, you can play with it a little bit there by making subtle changes, and you can push out a little farther, you can extend the edge of the cliff, but you are not going to solve it unless you are bold. We have to reform the system.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. In fact, he recalls for me testimony made by, again, the Comptroller General, David Walker, just yesterday. This is the Comptroller General of the United States of America, in front of the Committee on Ways and Means, just yesterday; he pointed out that, even right now, 2004, if we wanted to just fix, now by fixing the system, let me define that, make it sustainable forever, perpetually sustainable, do not have to go back and do it again, keep it on the same path for benefits, same path for payroll taxes as we now have, to get it to the point where you do not start getting in the red again, way out there; to make it sustainable today, we would either have to reduce benefits 13 percent or increase taxes 15. That is for permanent sustainability, if you only play with those two factors. Now, if you go out to 2018, that is this year right here, where we expect the line to cross and start the growing deficit cash deficits in the system, that increases. Of course, it has to have a bigger fix, 16 percent benefit cut or an 18 percent tax increase, and the gentleman is absolutely right, that the numbers that he gave us, if we wait till 2042, which is the year I believe that the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, says that is when we run out of dough, that is when all the bonds are used up, interest on the bonds. We are done. We have got to rely now just on the payroll taxes that come in on a daily, monthly basis to pay whatever benefits. Benefits immediately would drop, he said, about 30 percent, my colleague I think said 27, or increase taxes 43 percent. We cannot go down that path, and I liken it to, this is just too much common sense, and once in a while, it actually applies in this chamber. If your roof is leaking, when you notice that first drip, it is a little more prudent to go up on your roof and patch that roof when it is leaking just a little bit. It is cheaper. It is quicker than to wait until the entire roof collapses on you. Well, we can wait, and many are suggesting just exactly that. What is the hurry? What is the hurry? As my colleague pointed out, these are not numbers we have somehow created. These are from the actuaries. For every year we wait, it costs us $600 billion. Why is that? Because we are trading a year like this, especially on the front end, for a year like that on the back end, $600 billion. Now, how much is $600 billion? Well, that is about one-and-a-half times what we spend in the United States of America on our Defense budget every year. It is a lot of money, and I submit we cannot go there. I am joined by another colleague of mine, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry). Did I get that right?

Mr. BEAUPREZ. North Carolina, Patrick McHenry, a great name and a proud name.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being with me, and he brings a slightly different perspective being I think maybe the youngest Member.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Congratulations, youngest Member of this chamber. So maybe an even fresher perspective to this issue of Social Security reform, and with that, I will yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me, and my colleague puts in very good context the challenges in front of us. I think it is important to note that right now, recognizing the substance of the problem in front of us, but especially listening, and listening certainly to Members in this Chamber, this body, the people in this town, but, more importantly, listening to America for those good solutions is what we ought to be about. A couple of things I have already picked up on. In the last few weeks, I have had the pleasure, I guess it was a pleasure, although it was a stark message, of hearing the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration testify in front of our Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. James Lockhart. Mr. Lockhart was the first one during this new Congress to actually look us right in the eye and say ``Social Security, as it currently exists, is unsustainable.'' Now, there are a whole lot of words thrown out around here: problem, crisis, bankrupt, insolvency, all that stuff. But when the Deputy Commissioner of the program says it is unsustainable, I get that word. I also understand that over time, as I pointed out earlier in this hour, it started out with a 2 percent tax on the first $3,000, and it has been tweaked a little as we go. Along the way, the tax that the employer pays was implemented. And many people think, well, that is great, it is not mine. I submit, though, that if you are the worker, that is coming out of the personnel costs that that company, your employer, is allocating because he thinks it is an expense for having you as a worker. It is now 12.4 percent of not $3,000, but $90,000. So it has grown. Some are saying let us just tweak it again. We are not going to put it on a path of sustainability by another relatively subtle adjustment, subtle in some people's minds. Now, more recently, in fact yesterday, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States of America, had this to say. Some picked up on but a few words of what he had to say, but I will give the first several sentences: ``Although the Social Security System is not in crisis,'' and at least one of the major papers in this town had a headline that said ``Walker Says Social Security System Is Not in Crisis,'' and stopped there. But here is what he said: ``Although the Social Security system is not in crisis, it faces a serious solvency and sustainability challenge that is growing as time passes. If we do nothing until 2042,'' and that is suggested, ``achieving actuarial balance would require a 30 percent reduction in benefits or a 43 percent increase in payroll taxes for just the period of 2042 to 2078.'' And then once again you are back in the soup. You have got a problem in front of you there. All we do is defer into the future if we do not fix it now. ``Furthermore,'' he says, ``Social Security's problems are a subject of grave fiscal challenge facing our Nation. Absent changes in budget policy, the Nation will ultimately have to choose among escalating Federal deficits and debt, huge tax increases and/or dramatic budget cuts.'' Pretty stark words. ``As the General Accounting Office's long- term budget simulation shows, substantive reform of Social Security and our major Federal health programs is critical to saving our Nation's fiscal future. Taking action soon would serve to reduce the magnitude of the changes needed to ensure that Social Security is solvent, sustainable, and secure for current and future generations.'' I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the challenge in front of us: ``Take action soon to reduce the magnitude of the changes needed to ensure that Social Security is solvent, sustainable, and secure for current and future generations.'' Last week, and I will close with this, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had this to say: ``In my view, a retirement system with a significant personal accounts component would provide a more credible means of ensuring that the program actually adds to the overall saving and, in turn, boosts the Nation's capital stock.'' We are beginning to develop consensus. This is a huge heavy lift, but it is a lift that is necessary, as Mr. Walker said yesterday, ``to ensure that Social Security is solvent, sustainable, and secure for current and future generations of Americans.''

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And I thank him as well for bringing this issue to the floor tonight. My suspicion is that there will be many evenings and many days that we spend in this 109th Congress talking about this extremely important issue, and I think he framed the issue very well. This is in many ways, I think, a classic case of good news. We have got this chart up here again representing a little bit of the challenge in front of us. My parents were young workers at about this point in time, 1945. I was born in 1948. They are a part of these 42 that were working back in 1945 to provide the benefits for one retiree. One might call that one of their parents at the time. So this population of workers, my parents, were out there doing their thing day after day to provide the benefits for one retiree. Now today, which is where we are at now, it is kind of my generation, except we can see the group gets a little smaller. There is but three of us working for the benefits of one. My mother is one of those, and she depends on that paycheck every single month coming from Social Security, her benefits, and they are guaranteed. And that is a point that I think we cannot make often enough. The full faith and credit of the United States of America, both parties, Presidents from each party over the years have pledged that those benefits are there, and they are there. There has been this rhetoric going around that somehow somebody has got a devious plot to cut benefits. That is simply not true. The United States has made a promise to our retirees, to our senior citizens, those that worked hard for the benefits of others, and those benefits will be there. So we start out again with my parents' generation. It took a whole lot of people to get the work done back then. My dad and mother both were members of farm families. They had eight children in each family, and somehow it took all eight of them just to keep the family going back then. Today, we get a whole lot more done with fewer people, but again the facts are today we have got about three people paying for one beneficiary. Now we move on to when I and my wife are going to be retired, and my kids are going to have a little bit of role reversal here. My kids are going to be paying the benefits of us. And by the actuaries' own calculations, there will be but two to provide what at one point in time, not too many years ago, 42 were doing. That is the challenge in front of us. We get a whole lot more done with a whole lot fewer people it seems in the United States of America now, but the simple arithmetic is not our words; we did not invent it. It is an unsustainable. It is an unsustainable system as it currently exists. We Republicans were not the first ones to stumble over the problem. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has already pointed out, we have had a whole lot of support. President Clinton certainly said it. In fact, we have heard that FDR himself, the father of the Social Security system, cited back then, This is but supplemental; this is but a beginning, and you are actually going to have to come up with another method. And he said, We are going to need something like an annuity to provide the additional benefits that are there some day. Well, that some day has finally arrived. Senator Harry Reid, he understood it. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) already pointed out there is another gentleman, a notable gentleman in this Chamber, a notable Democrat, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking Democrat, most senior Democrat on our Committee on Ways and Means, the committee charged with dealing with this issue first and foremost. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on January 21, 1999, said, I am one Democrat that truly believes that the Democrats will not benefit by doing nothing on Social Security. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, doing nothing is exactly what the Democrats are today telling us they want to do. They have said no to everything, no to every idea that is out there. No, no, no. No even to the fact of life that there is a problem. They seem to deny the fact that there is a challenge in front of us. So their answer is no. What has changed between the comment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in January of 1999, and Senator Harry Reid's comment, February of 1999? I will tell you what has changed. Back then a Democrat President, Bill Clinton was President of the United States, and he was talking about the need to reform Social Security. Today, George W. Bush, a Republican, is President, and it seems that anything that George W. Bush is for, they are suddenly against, even if it happens to be the blatantly obvious, what their own party has been saying needs to be done for years and years and years. Let me shift gears just slightly in the time that I have got remaining. You know what this really ought to be about? It ought to be about facts, yes. It ought to be about the truth, yes. But it should also be about generational fairness. Let me go back to this chart one last time. This generation made a promise and they delivered. Social Security was there and the benefits existed and were paid. That same situation exists today, but as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) very clearly pointed out, we have got a big challenge in front of us because the dynamics represented by the reduction in the number of workers to provide the revenue to pay for the benefits, that challenge is getting ever greater. I do not know if it is 2042 or 2043, but somewhere in and around there, we have a huge problem. I do not want to look at my kids, my four children back home, nor my grandson, and say, The moment was in front of us in the 109th Congress; we had the support, the strength, the encouragement, the power of the President of the United States, and this Congress failed to act. It is in front of us. And this Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, should deal with this issue in a forthright, straightforward fashion. There is another truth that my four children certainly understand. They understand that all four of them are paying with every one of their pay checks into Social Security to provide benefits for retirees today. They know that in Social Security there is no line item that has their name next to it. I think they deserve the right to have their money. Whose money is it? They understand it. It is their money. And it is their retirement that we are sitting here, charged with dealing with. I think we ought to deal with it in a straightforward, truthful fashion. Fix the problem, fix it for today's generation, but for all generations as well. With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Florida and thank him once again for bringing this critical issue to the floor of the House.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 20) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 21) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my appreciation for the many years of dedicated service that Commissioner Ted Strickland has provided to the residents of Adams County, CO. After many years in public office, Ted Strickland has time and again proven his commitment to making Colorado a better place to live, and his presence on the Adams County Board of County Commissioners will truly be missed. Commissioner Strickland, born and raised in Austin, Texas, settled in Colorado in 1954 after being honorably discharged from the United States Army. His lengthy and distinguished career in public service began with two years in the Colorado House of Representatives and continued with 24 years of service in the Colorado State Senate, including 12 years as President of the Senate. He served as Lieutenant Governor from 1973-1974. Commissioner Strickland was elected to the Adams County Board of County Commissioners in 1996 and re-elected in 2000. The leadership that he has provided has been instrumental in improving relationships and cooperation with the municipalities within the County. Additionally, his work with Adams County Economic Development has contributed greatly to the growth and progress of the County. His service as a commissioner is distinguished by his business acumen, commitment to improve county facilities and seeing the county recognized as the ``can do county.'' Commissioner Strickland has proven himself to be a true Colorado statesman. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ted for his distinguished service on behalf of the citizens of Adams County, and wish him all the best as I'm sure he will remain an active member of the Adams County community.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American. At the end of this year, after a lifetime of dedicated service to his country, Admiral Richard Truly will be stepping down as Director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) located in Golden, Colorado. As many of you know, NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's premier laboratory for renewable energy research and development and a leading laboratory for energy efficiency research. Since first being elected to Congress two years ago, I have had the distinct pleasure of representing NREL and the many talented and dedicated employees that work at the lab. Through the leadership of Admiral Truly, NREL has continued to be at the forefront of new scientific discoveries, developing new energy technologies to benefit both the environment and the economy. I first became acquainted with Richard Truly through his position as Director of NREL, but as I later learned this is but one of the many great contributions he has made to his country in his storied career as a public servant. Prior to his service at NREL, Admiral Truly served as NASA's eighth Administrator under President Bush from 1989-92, and his career in aviation and space programs of the U.S. Navy and NASA spanned 35 years. He retired as a Vice Admiral after a Navy career of more than 30 years. As a naval aviator, test pilot and astronaut, he logged over 7,500 hours and made over 300 carrier arrested landings, day and night. Under his leadership, NASA matured the Space Shuttle, solidified Space Station plans and initiated new space science and aeronautics programs. He initiated major acquisition reforms and significantly streamlined the agency. He continually placed a very strong emphasis on NASA's math and science educational programs. In recognition of these accomplishments, President Reagan awarded the Presidential Citizen's Medal to Admiral Truly in 1989. While I am quite certain that the great works that Admiral Truly and his staff have been able to accomplish since he began serving as Director of NREL in May of 1997 will continue under new leadership, the next Director will certainly have big shoes to fill. Again, I want to congratulate him for his many outstanding years of public service. I wish both him and his wife many years of happiness as they move into this new stage of their lives.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my appreciation for the many years of dedicated service that Commissioner Elaine T. Valente has provided to the residents of Adams County, CO. Her many years of service as a County Commissioner have truly made an impact on Adams County. Commissioner Valente, a Colorado native, served on many boards and commissions before running for public office. She was elected to the Adams County Board of Commissioners in 1988 and is the first and only female commissioner elected during the first 100 years of Adams County's existence. Commissioner Valente was re-elected to the board for three additional terms. Noted for her steel-trap mind, her leadership was instrumental in improving the financial stability of the county. Many qualities distinguish her service to the county, but in particular her commitment to open space and protecting the county's interests are notable. Leading by example, she worked tirelessly to improve the reputation and credibility of the county. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Elaine for her distinguished service on behalf of the citizens of Adams County and wish her all the best on her future endeavors.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004. Today, more than ever, it is imperative that we address the benefits we provide to our Nation's veterans. Over the past few decades, the needs of veterans have evolved, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure the benefits they have so dutifully earned will sufficiently meet those changing needs. Included in this bill is language to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to begin negotiations with the University of Colorado for the land on which to build a new, state-of-the-art veterans medical facility on the Fitzsimons Campus in Aurora, CO. This landmark veterans hospital will be capable of providing services that were previously unthinkable in many of the unequipped, outdated VA hospitals of the past. Through a collaboration between the VA, the DOD, and the University of Colorado, veterans in the Rocky Mountain region will gain access to a higher quality of health care made possible thanks to 21st century innovations and the synergy of this unique partnership. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of everyone involved in bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today. It is a paramount piece of legislation not only for the veterans in my district, but for all of our Nation's veterans, and I strongly support its intent.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time. He is to be commended for his vigilance on behalf of all of our veterans, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) as well, our ranking member. I say to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), it has been a pleasure to work with you on this legislation, as it has with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) on behalf of all of our veterans, and, I might add, on behalf of our taxpayers, because I think we are being good stewards of the taxpayers' money. I think that is a point worth making. I know with the Fitzsimons project out in Colorado, which has already been mentioned, thank you very much, that I am going to talk about some more, I was convinced early on by the planners of this project that the operational savings of this new facility will more than pay for it as compared to maintaining and upgrading the aged 50-year-old facility we now have. So that makes sense, and we are delivering to our veterans health care in a network of facilities, especially the outpatient clinics, the way we deliver health care now in this 21st century. So it does make sense. A word about Fitzsimons, if I might. Another word about Fitzsimons, if I might. We are so excited about this project, for many reasons. It will continue a 50-year-plus partnership with the University of Colorado Health Science Center and the VA. The University of Colorado maintains a teaching research hospital that now in the new Fitzsimons campus, the renovated Fitzsimons campus, is going to be an enhanced, expanded, state-of-the-art facility. It is an absolute true state-of-the-art facility that will attract the best and brightest in the medical industry from all over the world. Why is that key to our veterans? Because 90 percent of our VA docs have cross privileges, so we have the best talent right there available, yes, for our veterans. We are also going to be in partnership with the DOD. Buckley Air Force Base is right across the street. So we are going to have the most modern facility, a research teaching facility, the greatest staff from which to recruit and staff our hospital. We believe in this hospital creating a state-of-the-art, a new standard, elevating the standard for health care for all of our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the committee members, and I thank Secretary Principi for supporting this as well. It is an opportunity to do the right thing for those among our population who very much deserve the very best: our veterans.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, occasionally on this floor we get to do win/win proposals, and this is clearly one of them. This legislation is almost identical to legislation adopted by this Chamber earlier this session which I, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) introduced. The difference is, this legislation actually is better. It is better in that it provides the United States Forest Service a 45-day window of opportunity to do their due diligence before the transfer actually takes place, and it also increases the acreage that the city of Golden is willing to trade to the government to accomplish this mission. What is this mission? The mission is the city of Golden gets to increase its water storage capacity by 40 percent, which is critical to this small town in my district, in exchange for 10 acres to connect a pipeline to the reservoir, the storage reservoir. The United States Forest Service will acquire 80 acres near the city of Evergreen which will stay perpetually green, maintaining pristine wilderness, and also an additional 56 acres that includes a portion of the Continental Divide Trail. Yes, the Continental Divide, that place where east and west divide and a pristine wilderness trail that is critical not only to our State but to much of the Nation as we connect from our southern border clear to our northern border. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to see this legislation before this body. It is a privilege to rise in support of it. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two distinguished Coloradoans who reside in my district. I am pleased to announce that Paul and Kate Tauer, of Aurora, Colorado, were recipients of the 2004 National Excellence in Parenting Award presented by the National Parents' Day Council. I believe that commitment to family and community is a core value all Americans should share. Unfortunately, we rarely take the time to recognize individuals who place their own interests behind those of their family and community. Paul and Kate Tauer have been married for 47 years and are the parents of 8 children and the grandparents of 13. They have been tireless in their volunteer efforts, in which their children take an active role. The Tauers have served on countless committees and participate in a myriad of volunteer endeavors. Together they started the Aurora Asian Pacific Partnership and both serve on the Mental Health Center Board. Paul recently retired as a four-term Mayor of Aurora, the third most populous city in Colorado. Following in the footsteps of his father, Paul's son Ed was elected to succeed him as Mayor of Aurora. This award provides an opportunity to recognize and promote parenting as a central vocation for our families and our communities. It is my genuine honor to be able to represent Paul and Kate Tauer. They are distinguished citizens, activists and parents--there is no higher or more honorable calling.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Madam Speaker, on September 11, 2001, America rallied around the Stars and Stripes as we have never before seen. From downtown Manhattan to the streets of my hometown in Colorado, Americans shared their pain and support by raising the flag. And in our flag we found our strength and resolve. Today, America is safer than ever before, in large part because we did not yield to those terrorists who lacked humanity and virtue. Our selfless soldiers continue to fight and prevail in a war on terror all over the world. These young men and women engage in battle, so that their children and grandchildren will not have to. As terrorist organizations are dismantled, we guarantee our young ones a brighter future. With every dictator we put away, we help ensure that our sons and daughters and their families will never have to carry a loved one out of rubble. Madam Speaker, our Nation has always been an extraordinary Nation, but today we rise up once again for those phenomenal firefighters, police officers, doctors and, yes, today's soldiers, who by their actions say we will not give in. God bless them, and God bless America.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the previous speaker, just mentioned, today America's seniors are receiving significant discounts on their prescription medications for the first time in the history of Medicare. Discounts range from approximately 20 percent for brand-name drugs to as much as 60 percent on mail order prescriptions. These savings can be seen all across the country. My own parents, for example, back home in Colorado can save a combined $1,300 a year on their prescription medications. The money they are saving goes a long way toward helping them with their retirement savings or, more, to be generous with their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I am told that certain low-income seniors are realizing even greater savings from this program. Qualifying Medicare beneficiaries can save as much as 86 percent, as we just heard, on what they currently pay for prescription drugs. Millions of seniors are already enjoying these significant savings from their Medicare prescription drug cards. I commend the Members of this House and the President for passing this legacy legislation.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman of our committee for his diligence on this bill, as well as on behalf of all veterans. He is to be commended. And my thanks as well to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), my good friend, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of our full committee, for his work as well. It has been a real pleasure to serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in a true bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 4175. There is absolutely no question that our Nation's veterans are truly deserving of every bit of assistance we can afford to provide them in return for their service to our country. Disabled veterans must receive even greater care and compensation. It is imperative that we ensure that these brave men and women receive every benefit they have so painstakingly earned. It is equally important that these benefits be periodically adjusted to meet the increasing demands of inflation. This bill, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, will increase disability compensation and survivor pensions based upon the Consumer Price Index. In addition, the bill will also provide additional compensation for surviving spouses and their children. Madam Speaker, I feel the merits of this bill speak for themselves and have already eloquently been addressed in this Chamber. I hope my colleagues here today will join me in supporting this legislation for those who helped defend our Nation's unparalleled ideals.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 591, and to honor the significant, longstanding contribution of America's Community Banks. In hometowns all across America, Community Banks have been the anchor for countless generations. Moms and dads raising families, educating their children, planning for a comfortable retirement; farmers, entrepreneurs and innumerable small businesses that are the cornerstone of our free-market economy; churches, hospitals, schools, civic organizations--indeed the entire fabric of America's culture--all know they have a partner and friend in their hometown Community Bank. Jimmy Stewart romanticized the legacy of hometown bankers as George Bailey in the Christmastime classic, ``It's a Wonderful Life''. Mr. Speaker, while the movie's plot was fictional, in neighborhoods and towns all across America, there are real life George Baileys that work hard and nobly, extend a helping hand, help see families and businesses through difficulties, and make dreams come true on a daily basis. Like the other small businesses in America's hometowns, Community Banks are typically owned by the folks right there in the community. They know their neighbors, and their neighbors know them. They know a handshake still matters. Their kids go to school together, and they see each other at church. Community Banks depend on the people in the community for their success, and the community depends on the bank to be there for them-- through good times and tough times. It's a partnership that isn't drawn up on any contract, but it is understood and established with a bond far stronger than paper and ink. So, Mr. Speaker, I proudly support H. Res. 591, and urge all my colleagues in the House to join me in expressing gratitude for the contribution of our Nation's Community Banks, as one of our country's great traditions.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3308.