Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of a health care organization in my district, Commerce City Community Health Services.

Earlier this month, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue ShIeld awarded the 2005 Hero in Health Award to Commerce City Community Health Services (CHS). CHS has provided free and/or reduced cost services to uninsured and underinsured youth in Adams County, Colorado for over 20 years.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield conceived the Hero in Health Award in 2001 as a way to recognize and reward those organizations that exemplify an authentic commitment to serving underinsured and uninsured individuals. Additionally, the Hero in Health Award heightens awareness for issues of healthcare access and affordability. In 2003, the field of eligible organizations was narrowed to clinics that provide services to the underinsured and uninsured.

CHS is a non-profit, 501(c) 3 organization that provides low-cost, high-quality primary and preventive health care services. CHS was initially funded in 1979 by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as a demonstration site for the National School Health Project and was one of the first school-based health centers in the country. Colorado Association of School-Based Health Care recognized CHS recently as the oldest, operational school-based center in the state.

CHS has a community-based center and school-based centers. The community-based center is part of the Adams County High School campus. Health care services are provided for children and adolescents, birth to 21 years old. The health care services include physical exams, medical screenings, immunizations, acute care for the diagnosis and treatment for minor illnesses, infections and injuries, management of chronic health conditions, routine lab work, well/sick infant care, nutrition and weight control counseling, and health education.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the fine men and women of Commerce City Community Health Services. It is the best kind of community organization, fulfilling needs in the community others have not and continuously evolving to address changing demands. They serve a tremendous purpose in Adams County and I am very proud to be able to congratulate them for receiving the Hero in Health Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Brighton, Colorado, for recently being named by the Economic Developers' Council of Colorado (EDCC) as the recipient of the Large Community of the Year award for 2004. The EDCC presents their annual achievement awards that recognize outstanding achievement in economic development by honoring individuals, businesses and communities throughout the State of Colorado.

The City of Brighton was honored to receive this award which is presented to a community over 20,000 in population that demonstrates support for economic development through an organized economic development program and strong leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at a few of the many successes the City has been able to accomplish recently, there is no doubt that they are well deserving of this award.

The City provided an incentive package valued at nearly $8.2 million for a new Adams County campus for County services. This campus will not only retain jobs for Brighton but will also ensure that Brighton remains the County Seat.

Brighton found funding, without any state support, for the roundabouts at the intersection of U.S. 85 and State Highway 7, which is a major highway intersection to downtown Brighton. The City has also been forward thinking in contributions on their part to make the FasTracks public transit program become a reality in Brighton.

In 2004 the City broke ground on a 14-acre entertainment/retail development, the Brighton Pavilions. This project is a unique public/ private partnership between the City, the Brighton Urban Renewal Authority, Brighton Economic Development Corporation, Carlson-Parkhi, LLC and RTD. It is the first Transit Oriented Development in the state based on a bus transit park-n-ride, and a public/private endeavor and is a ``model'' project for the Denver metro area. Further, this partnership helped the City receive the Adams County Economic Development 2004 Regional Partnership Award.

On the issue of water, which is so vital to communities in Colorado, Brighton has made great strides in making water purchases during 2004 and has aligned itself with other regional communities to provide water solutions in and out of its community. The first water augmentation storage lake was completed and filled in 2004.

Mr. Speaker, what's equally important to many Brighton residents is that the City has been able to accomplish all of this while still retaining its small town atmosphere that makes it so attractive by opening six new neighborhood parks last year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Brighton's Mayor, Jan Pawlowski, and all the citizens of the City for Brighton's recognition as the Large Community of the Year. It is only appropriate that the entire State acknowledge the City's efforts and achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to speak to my colleagues and those watching these proceedings about something that is occurring in Colorado's 7th Congressional District which is directly benefiting the Department of the Navy and the U.S. taxpayer.

I am so honored to have met the great folks in Arvada, Colorado, my home State, who work for Barber-Nichols, Incorporated, and to hear their story about what they have been able to do so far for the Navy's Surface Ship Torpedo Defense, SSTD, program.

This program uses a torpedo, or more particularly an anti-torpedo torpedo to protect our ships.

I know it sounds a bit off center, a landlocked State such as Colorado with such expertise in torpedo programs. In fact, Barber- Nichols possesses both advanced engineering and manufacturing prowess that are ideal for reducing the high cost of technology equipment such as the ATT, a very complicated weapon which has approximately 700 separate parts.

Barber-Nichols has used their expertise to help the Navy and the American taxpayer reduce the cost of the torpedo and provide tremendous cost savings in the program. To date, for every $1 we have spent on the ATT affordability program, the Navy has realized future production cost savings of $15. Barber-Nichols approached the Navy and their design agent, the Applied Research

Laboratory, or ARL, at Penn State to discuss how to consider manufacturability and assemble ability concepts in the design today so that we can save money in the production tomorrow.

As we have all witnessed, Mr. Speaker, developing and maintaining the best military in the world comes with a hefty price tag. In an extremely tight budget environment, it goes without saying that any program that can save money helps that service perform better.

With that said, let me tell you more about the ATT program and the affordability efforts that are ongoing in this program. The surface ship torpedo defense program and the anti-torpedo torpedo program were started by the United States Navy because our ships were, and remain, vulnerable to torpedo attack. Currently, there are several torpedoes available on the world market that we have little or no defense against. That is right, little to no defense against a torpedo attack.

The threat increases when we move our ships from the open ocean, where we can see for hundreds of miles, to coastal areas where threats can get closer to our ships and our reaction time is lessened. As we project our forces into the Third World areas, we operate in locations like the Persian Gulf where we are much more vulnerable.

Torpedoes can be bought on the black market by people and organizations who wish to do us harm. These torpedoes can be launched from the shoreline or small boats, threats that we were not too worried about until the USS Cole incident where 17 U.S. sailors made the ultimate sacrifice.

Because of this threat to our ships and sailors, Congress has weighed in heavily in support of torpedo defense, as was stated in a letter to the Secretary of the Navy back in 1997, signed by Chairman Duncan Hunter and other Members of this House, including Roscoe Bartlett, who is with us tonight, Bob Dornan, Duke Cunningham and Gene Taylor. I quote from their letter:

``We are especially concerned that our high-value ships that carry hundreds or even thousands of our young sailors and marines are very vulnerable to particular classes of torpedoes.''

Congress has also asked the Navy to study the vulnerability of our ships as evidenced in this quote:

``We therefore ask you to conduct an independent review of the SSTD program and provide us with your findings.'' That in a letter to the Under Secretary of the Navy, again from Congressman Hunter, Bartlett, Dornan and Cunningham.

And Congress has agreed with the independent studies that say we should move forward with torpedo defense as seen in this quote:

``I understand that the IDA study is completed and that the results strongly confirm that all ships need to be protected from torpedoes. I look forward to working with you to improve the capability of our ships to defend themselves against torpedo attack.'' That, in a letter to the Secretary of Defense from Chairman Duncan Hunter.

Congress since has provided multiple years of funding to allow the Navy to address the issue. The Navy agrees our sailors and high-value ships are worth protecting and that torpedo defense is an important capability to have.

Thus, the Navy has, first, teamed with our ally, Great Britain, to jointly develop elements of a surface ship torpedo defense system; secondly, made torpedo defense a requirement for new ship design efforts; third, identified the anti-torpedo torpedo as the solution for torpedo defense; and fourth, developed an anti-torpedo torpedo technology demonstrator that has included successful in-water testing.

In the FY 2006 budget, the Navy requested over $47 million for torpedo defense, so Congress is well aware of their interest in continuing this program into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked a lot about the need and the desire to protect our ships and our sailors. I bet you would like to hear about how the Navy envisions the system will work. This chart to my left depicts the AN/WSQ-11, this surface ship torpedo defense system. In very simple terms, surface ship torpedo defense is accomplished by detecting a threat torpedo with a sensor towed behind the ship, launching the anti-torpedo torpedo against that threat, intercepting the threat torpedo with the ATT, and destroying it, obviously, before the threat can reach our ship.

Conceptually, it looks fairly simple. Practically, intercepting a torpedo under water is quite difficult. We have all seen the challenges played out in the newspapers regarding missile defense. This is essentially the same thing under water, albeit at far slower speeds. The good news is that the tests, to date, show that the technology works.

Mr. Speaker, we started this discussion tonight with an acknowledgment regarding the hefty price tag associated with developing and maintaining the best military in the world. However, as stewards of the public's money in this Chamber, we should be looking for ways to spend it wisely. The ATT affordability program is a prime example of fiscal responsibility in military spending.

The anti-torpedo torpedo affordability program was started to ensure we could afford the surface ship torpedo defense system when it goes to production. The ATT affordability program is very similar to the efforts commercial companies across our Nation practice on a daily basis.

Commercial product companies develop a new product with a final cost in mind. They eliminate features that are not cost effective, and they continually look for ways to reduce cost during that product design. Once the product is designed and developed, they work hard to manufacture the product in a cost-effective manner.

The important fact to realize is that 80 percent of the product cost is predetermined in the design process, not in the manufacturing process. Thus, addressing affordability must be done in that first design process.

In the ATT affordability program, my constituent Barber-Nichols, a commercial company again in Arvada, Colorado, is working with the Navy's design agent, ARL-Penn State, to simplify the product, reduce costs of manufacture and assembly and ensure affordability and cost reduction are considered in the design process.

Affordability is usually not addressed in government technology development programs until after a production program is awarded. Contractors can reduce cost with innovative manufacturing approaches, but the bulk of the potential cost savings will not ever be realized because they were not addressed in the product design. Incorporating commercial best practices like we have just discussed into government procurement practices could save us potentially a great deal of taxpayer money.

One aspect of affordability is design for manufacturability. In a simplistic way, this chart to my left depicts the major steps in the process. The way this is accomplished is that you first start with a baseline design, understand what each part of it costs to make, then look at the high-priced pieces to see if costs can be reduced. You then develop lower-cost alternative designs that are constructed and tested. If these alternative designs are successful, both technically and costwise, you can incorporate the alternative design into the baseline design.

This design for manufacturability method has been used on the anti- torpedo torpedo. First, a baseline design cost study was performed. From this study, the most expensive parts of the torpedo were found and it was determined that the engine was the most expensive subsystem of the product, as depicted in this new graph. This cost analysis helped in understanding what to focus on first. Where is the biggest bang for the buck? From this analysis, the development moved into affordability projects.

One example of a high-priced component that was made into an ATT affordability project is the torpedo propulsor shown on this next chart. That is this machined part from the ATT depicted here. In the production quantities planned, the part was estimated to cost about $14,000 each. I have seen this part. It fits easily into the palm of my hand. Again, it was estimated initially to cost about $14,000 each.

The DFM process yielded a lower-cost design that was much easier to

make. This low-cost design was manufactured and tested. The tests showed it performed as well as the expensive design. Thus, this low- cost design will now be incorporated into the government's baseline design. When this part goes into production, it will now cost a little over $2,000 each instead of the $14,000, resulting in production program savings of about 80 percent of the original cost estimate.

Another example of an affordability project under way is the electronic card carrier set, one of which is shown here. The current design is a set of fully machined metal pieces that would cost approximately $4,000 a set if manufactured in production today as originally designed.

The low-cost alternative design uses die cast pieces with very little machining. If these are successfully fabricated and tested later this year, the Navy will achieve a very substantial cost savings with this part as well. The low-cost design is expected to cost approximately $200 per set and result is a cost savings of almost that full $4,000 of the original estimated cost, or about 95 percent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the ATT affordability program has been extremely successful and must stay the programmatic course in order to protect our sailors and ships when they are in harm's way. The projects completed in 2003 and 2004 are expected to save $31.2 million of taxpayer money when the ATT goes into production. More projects are planned in 2005 through 2007. We estimate the government will save $15 in production costs for every $1 spent in this affordability effort.

Developing and maintaining the best military in the world comes with a price. In an extremely tight budget environment, any program that can save money should be applauded and supported.

I congratulate Barber-Nichols, Inc., of Arvada, Colorado; ARL-Penn State, and certainly the Navy for their efforts with the ATT program and hope other such collaborative design projects will provide for our security, protect our troops and use taxpayer dollars as prudently as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's comments.

I rise for the purpose of engaging the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, in a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the chairman is aware, our larger ships such as carriers, amphibious, and logistic ships with many sailors and Marines embarked, could be vulnerable to torpedo attack. The threat increases when we move our ships from open ocean to restricted littoral waters where torpedo launch platforms such as diesel submarines and surface patrol craft can get closer to our ships and our reaction time is lessened.

Currently, there is a proliferation of torpedoes of various types available on the world market that could cause significant damage to our surface ships. These weapons could be launched from the shoreline or small boats, threats that we were not too worried about until the USS Cole incident.

The gentleman and the Committee on Armed Services have provided the leadership needed for defense of our Navy ships and its sailors from torpedo attack through their support of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense program. I agree with the gentleman that this is a very important program and believe that the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo is a key element of the program.

My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we have not made the type of progress on this issue that we likely should have. I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his commitment to this issue and look forward to working with him and the House Committee on Armed Services on this critical problem.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and commend him for leading a wonderful delegation to Iraq. It was my second visit. I know it was your third, but it was my second visit. The first one was in November of 2003. And I was taken by several things, of course, but one that really sticks out in my mind.

As the gentleman will recall, the day we were in Baghdad, Camp Victory, and took the helicopter rides, the Blackhawks, and flew over the city, I think you, myself, all of our colleagues were struck by how much normalcy, and we have to put that in the appropriate context of course, because it is still Baghdad and it is obviously still very much a zone of much conflict, but how normal it looked by comparison to when I was there last in November of 2003. Then, it was obviously in considerable turmoil, and that is probably an understatement.

But as we flew over the city that day, I remember seeing cars going up and down the streets in the residential areas. We saw people walking in and out of their homes. We saw the market areas that looked fairly busy and life going on, much as you would think to see in many other cities.

What really caught me even more later on that day was that when we got back to our rooms that night and turned on the TV, we realized that was the day there were these demonstrations in Baghdad. And watching TV that night, I thought, goodness, the entire city was somehow under siege and we missed it.

As you will recall, that was the day we sat with the generals, Petraeus, Casey, Vines, and we were also with the new Prime Minister Jafari, and I thought what did we miss? Because we did not see anything really of significance and nobody brought it to our attention.

The next day we were with the Iraqi women, as the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, at their conference, and I recall bringing that up to a group that I was talking to, and some that were actually from Baghdad, and they were remarkably dismissive.

Now, Baghdad is a city, as I recall, roughly the population of Chicago. It is a big city. And when we mentioned what about the demonstration yesterday, it was kind of an, oh, that was Muqtada al- Sadr's bunch. They do not amount to much. It was almost like there was a demonstration in a Safeway parking lot back home. It was kind of, oh, well.

I mention that not to make light of the struggles they have, because the gentleman from Nebraska put it in an appropriate context, it is still very much a dicey place. It is very troubled.

Security is their number one issue, and will remain their number one issue for quite awhile.

I think what we struggle with back here at home is watching the 6 p.m. news or reading the morning paper and trying to put in the appropriate context what the rest of Iraq is dealing with on a daily basis. And I saw evidence in relative terms, they are starting to experience some degree of normalcy. Life is coming back. Choices are becoming theirs. They have some opportunity. They have that wonderful four-letter word, hope. I do not think we can underestimate how powerful that is.

We have all wondered at our own moment in time, are we on the right course, maybe even the right mission. But I at least came home feeling, because we heard it again, that this is worth it, that we do have a plan now.

The security mission has changed, or is in the process of changing rather dramatically from us doing it for them and them looking over our shoulder, to them now taking, day by day, an increasingly larger role in their own security, taking care of their own neighborhoods and their own security, and us being more the observer and the counselor.

That is a dramatic shift in the paradigm and that is critical to our exit strategy. If we are going to get out of there, they need to take care of their own security operations.

A couple of other observations. When we sat by coincidence with their new prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, he was in his second day of office. I was so taken by him sitting there and invoking the beginnings of a nation.

Remember, this is the Fertile Crescent. This is where civilization began. This is humanity's beginnings, and we are the upstarts by comparison. Here he is talking to us about how he would like to be the kind of nation, Iraq would like to be the kind of nation that Thomas Jefferson wrote about that honored life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was a humbling moment for me.

He spoke with great eloquence in his native language through an interpreter. He spoke with tremendous courage and inspiring vision, and asked us all to bring back a message to the American people. He told us, We realize you did not have to send your daughters and sons over here to do as they have done, spill their blood for us to give us a chance at liberty, but they did. And he told us again, That is the kind of nation we would like to be. He said, Please take home a message to the American people from me. He said, It is a message of love, a message of love to the American people.

That is a powerful thing, Mr. Speaker. It is a powerful thing.

I remember I asked him, Mr. Prime Minister, it seems we are at a point where the history of the world might actually change. And he said, We realize in Iraq that we are a bit of a candle in the darkness, and as goes Iraq, very well may go the entire Middle East.

We do not know for sure. There is a great deal of uncertainty ahead of us. But I submit tonight as we approach Memorial Day weekend, and last week I was home and helped celebrate Armed Forces Day at one of our cemeteries where Civil War veterans are buried, especially tonight as we think about our troops still there in harm's way, as we think about this weekend thanking those who put on the uniform, both current as well as in the past, as we think about how different even our opportunity is simply because they answered the call, they put on the uniform, they went into harm's way, they took the risk, and they are making a difference. I hold in my heart of hope that it is a dramatic difference.

I would say to the gentleman, I remember as well our last stop on the way home was in Germany at Landstuhl, the military hospital. We stopped in that room with those two soldiers that the very day before had encountered an IED, an improvised explosive device. It went off under their Humvee and literally lifted that armed Humvee up in the air and turned it upside down and dropped it on its top. They were lying in their hospital beds. And I said, in my naivete, Boy, I bet you are looking forward to when you heal up enough and get sent back home to the United States.

They looked at me like I must be the dumbest person in the world. Finally one of them spoke and said, No, sir, we want to get released from this hospital so we can go back and be with our buddies and finish the job we were sent here to do.

It is very inspiring to go over there and witness not only the progress that is being made, but especially the patriotism of our young men and women.

I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska especially because I recall the first trip I took over there, and I asked a colonel from Grand Junction, Colorado, what I could possibly do for him. He said, I am committed to this mission and I can sleep at night. I know we are in control, but please go home and tell the truth because, he said, My wife has trouble sleeping.

So I think it is important while we recognize the challenges in front of us and the tough days still ahead of us, we also recognize the good that is being done and the progress that is very much being made.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity to share tonight and thank the gentleman for leading a wonderful trip to Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding for the National Endowment of the Arts by $30 million and transfer the funds to the United States Forest Service for thinning projects to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.

As Members of this Chamber will certainly remember, the summers of 2000 and 2002 were the two largest and most destructive fire seasons in the last 50 years. According to information presented by the United States Forest Service Chief, Dale Bosworth, in 2002, some 73 million acres of the 192 million acres managed by the United States Forest Service remain at risk to catastrophic wildfire. That is greater than the size of the entire State of Arizona.

The Wall Street Journal reported that parts of the National Forest System contain more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre, or 10 times the manageable or appropriate level. Disease and insect infestations have also attributed

to an increase in combustible fuels. In Colorado alone, surveys have recorded that approximately 1.2 million trees have been killed by mountain pine beetle outbreaks in 2004. This is nearly 100 times the mortality rate reported in 1996.

This is the kind of timber that turns small fires into kinds of infernos that have devastated Colorado and other western States in recent years, destroying homes, poisoning the air, scorching critical habitat, and choking streams and rivers with tons of soot and sediment.

Positive steps have been made recently, most notably the passage of the Healthy Forest Act, which enabled forest managers to begin the process of restoring our forests to more sustainable and natural states. This legislation has helped land managers cut through the red tape that has delayed badly needed thinning projects.

However, even with increased attention to thinning and fuels treatment efforts, more funding is needed. Since the majority of our forests are federally owned, the burden to protect our States and local communities from the devastating effects of forest fires lies with the Federal agencies designated to protect them. Congress must fully fund their needs.

While cooler temperatures and increased moisture have brought some relief to the West this past winter, we cannot forget the need to continue to support responsible forest management. Another dry season is just one hot summer away. The human consequences from past fires have taught us we must continue to be proactive with our forest management. It far outweighs the devastating economic, ecological, and social cost of forest fires.

In 2002, hundreds of homes and other structures were destroyed and thousands more were evacuated. Twenty-three firefighters lost their lives, and the American taxpayer spent in excess of $1.5 billion containing 2002's record-setting blazes. Rural economies that rely on tourism suffered significant losses.

This amendment is a modest attempt to provide additional funding that can be used on the ground immediately in a way that will help ensure cleaner air and water, protection of sensitive ecosystems, keep western communities safe from catastrophic wildfire, and improve the health of our forests and watersheds. Simply, it reduces funding for the NEA by $30 million and transfers funds to the United States Forest Service for thinning projects.

The question arises, why take funds from the NEA. I applaud the progress that has been made recently by the NEA in repairing a very damaged image in the view of many Americans. One of my sons is actually a student of the arts, and my wife and I are certainly avid arts supporters and particularly appreciate ``public art.''

However, a very small percentage of artistic funds comes from the Federal Government. Still, since fiscal year 2000, NEA funding from the Federal Government has increased by 19 percent. In 2001, the NEA budget as a percentage of total revenues in the nonprofit arts sector was less than 0.4 percent.

Most of the funding happens to come from everyday patrons of the arts who enjoy them, philanthropists and corporate donations that foster the development of artistic communities.

I commend these individuals and organizations for doing so. However, it should be a greater priority of Congress to ensure the safety of our western communities, prevent forest fires, and save lives rather than spend taxpayer dollars for artistic endeavors, enjoyable as they may be.

When Congress spends so much annually to put out wildfires, does it not make more sense to spend that money on additional thinning treatments that could help prevent forest fires from starting in the first place? I was pleased when the Healthy Forest Initiative was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. However, I worried that we still lacked the economic incentives that could make the management of our forests, the removal of dead fuel for an inferno, an opportunity. That incentive now exists.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``aye.''

Offered By: Mr. Beauprez

Amendment No. 6: In title III of the bill under the heading

``WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)'',

insert after the first dollar amount on Page 76 the following

``(increased by $27,500,000)''

Insert after the first dollar amount on page 77

``(increased by $27,500,000)''

In title III of the bill in the item relating to ``NATIONAL

ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS--GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION'', insert

after the first dollar amount on Page 106 the following

``(reduced by $30,000,000)''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an important accomplishment in Colorado. The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District earned its second consecutive Platinum Award from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA, formerly the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies) for its second consecutive five-year period without a single numerical violation of its discharge permit.

The award was presented May 1, 2005 at NACWA's 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.

According to NACWA, earning two back-to-back Platinum Awards has been achieved by only five other wastewater treatment agencies

in the country. Two Platinum Awards represent 10 perfect years, during which the Metro District has discharged almost 530 billion gallons of treated, high-quality water into the South Platte River and completed more than 100,000 chemical and biological analyses that verify there were no permit violations.

The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District's 345 employees have every right to be proud of this accomplishment. It places them among the elite protectors of the environment in the nation.

These accomplishments result from the efforts of many. The District has an outstanding maintenance department, a well-engineered plant, great support groups, and management who always strive to do the best for their ratepayers. They also have a dedicated operations staff that continually gives examples of their ability to get things done no matter what the challenge.

The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District serves approximately 1.5 million people. Its service area includes most of metropolitan Denver and encompasses 380 square miles, including all of Denver and parts of Adams, Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties. Arvada, Aurora, Lakewood, Thornton, and part of Westminster are included.

The Metro District collects and treats about 130 million gallons of wastewater a day at its 185 million-gallon-a-day Central Treatment Plant five miles northeast of central Denver. This plant is the largest wastewater treatment facility in the Rocky Mountain West.

Formed under Colorado law in 1961, the Metro District provides wholesale wastewater transmission and treatment service to 57 local governments, including both cities and sanitation districts in metropolitan Denver. The Metro District began treating metro Denver's wastewater in 1966.

NACWA implemented the National Environmental Achievement Awards program in 1983 to recognize the excellence that was occurring routinely at many wastewater treatment agencies across the country.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and commend her for organizing this hour that we can talk about this energy bill, but we all hope we not only hope can pass on this floor but can actually in this Congress become law because we have waited too long. The American people have waited too long to have an energy policy that is a little bit more than one day at a time. So I do, again, commend the gentlewoman.

ANWR has been an issue in this Congress and much of the United States for years and years and years. When I got elected to Congress in 2002, ANWR was very much on my mind because one of the first issues we talked about was an energy bill.

I had an opportunity to go up and see that much talked about, much described, very valuable piece of real estate in August of 2003 with a few of my congressional colleagues. I have in front of me tonight a map that puts Alaska in relative size to the lower 48 States in proper perspective. ANWR is in this region. The area we are actually talking about exploring is represented by that green dot, just 2,000 acres. 2,000 acres is roughly the size of the St. Louis airport that most of us and many Americans have landed in. I have also heard that in relative size it is about like Dulles, which we are all very familiar with back here in the Washington, D.C., area. It is about the same size as the land dedicated to the Dulles airport as compared to the entire State of Virginia. So we are talking about a relatively small part of a massive piece of real estate.

This map very quickly puts in perspective one other key thing, the amount of oil represented by 1 million barrels per day coming from that one small piece of real estate, and that is a conservative estimate of the amount of oil that can be generated from this ANWR reserve, over 1 million barrels a day.

Several other energy sources are addressed in this bill, wind power, which I certainly embrace coming from Colorado. We produce a little wind power ourselves, but so do our friends from Rhode Island and Connecticut represented in gray by about 3.7 million acres dedicated to wind energy. To generate the same amount of total energy is 1 million barrels of oil from ANWR.

In red, down at Lake Okeechobee, where they utilize solar, as we do also in Colorado, but some 448,000 acres are dedicated to solar energy generation, to again apply the energy to 1 million barrels from ANWR in one day.

Or in green, again the coastal plain, or in black the acreage, as I mentioned, from the Lambert Airport.

Ethanol is in yellow. Massive piece of ground. We have heard much about ethanol already tonight on the floor of the House. Ethanol is also of interest to the eastern plains, especially in Colorado, where we grow a whole lot of corn.

I see one of my colleagues from Iowa here tonight grinning a bit. I know it is important to him. But you see the massive amount of land acreage, 80.5 million acres that would have to be dedicated to growing corn to produce as much ethanol as we get from a million barrels of oil a day in Alaska.

Now, to the point I really wanted to address, and this is the point. We ought to remember that there are precious few people who actually live in that very difficult, very hostile environment in the world, ANWR, which is literally on the coast of the Arctic Ocean. I went up and visited that. If I can put this map back up, I will put it in proper perspective.

Prudhoe Bay, which we often talk about, is located here, again literally on the edge of the Arctic Ocean. A small village of Kaktovik is roughly where that green dot is. We actually flew over in a very small plane, landed on a gravel runway and visited these people in Kaktovik; about 270 of them actually manage to survive in that very, very difficult environment.

How do they do that? They still hunt the whale. They go out when the Arctic Ocean opens up a little bit and get in the open water and they are allowed to get three whale a year. They fish for Arctic char and they survive on them. And, yes, they hunt and kill and eat

the caribou meat, as they have for generations and generations. That is how they survive.

I submit to this body and submit to the American people that if anyone is concerned about preserving that environment, it is these people. Not because it is pristine, not because they like the view, not because the air is very, very clean, but it is about survival. It is about their very existence. If that environment changes, these people have a very, very serious, life-threatening problem. If anybody is interested in maintaining that environment unchanged, it is them.

And we all know what the environment is supposed to look like. It looks like this for a small window of the year. It is covered with caribou and a little bit of short grass, as I saw it in August when I was there. And, actually, the caribou, from 1972 to current days, in about a 30-year window, have increased, not decreased. Since we did the Prudhoe Bay development, they have actually increased by about tenfold, a thousand percent. And we have heard much about that.

That is how ANWR looks some of the year. This is how ANWR looks most of the year. That is not the moon, that is actually ice, and that is about all that is there. It is frozen and it is ice covered.

How much oil is there? The experts, the scientists tell us that if we would develop ANWR, and frankly, had we gone ahead and done it in 1995, when Congress actually approved it and President Clinton vetoed the bill, today we would be bringing over a million barrels a day to the lower 48 from ANWR.

How much is a million barrels a day? Actually, they project almost 1.4 million a day from ANWR. That is almost as much as we import daily from, yes, Saudi Arabia, our largest single source of imported oil, almost a direct offset to Saudi Arabia.

Now, what do the people in ANWR think? Final point. We asked Fenton Rexford, who is the President of the Native Indian Corporation that populates that little piece of real estate, well, that very large piece of real estate but very small group of people. What should we do with ANWR? I asked him the question. Two-word answer: Drill it. I said, Really? He said, Yes, drill it. I said, Is that what your villagers think? He had already told us there were 271 people living there that day. He said, well, at least 270 of them agree. That is close to unanimous.

One of my colleagues said, but what about the caribou? This was after he told us how they depend on the caribou for their very survival. He said, What about it? Well, my colleague said, If we happen to drill there, explore there, develop there, we might scare them off or change their migratory pattern. And the president looked at us and he said, You are missing something here, and we all leaned forward in eager anticipation. He said you are missing something here.

We said, What is that? We hunt them and kill them and they come back. And we all said, Oh, yeah, you do. We hunt them and kill them and they come back. You are not going to scare them off by exploring for a little bit of oil out here. He said again, Drill it.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for all of his leadership, especially for bringing this resolution to the floor today, but for all of his leadership throughout the years. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as well for his leadership, similarly a champion of justice and a compassionate individual who speaks with tremendous moral clarity.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened today, as a lifelong Catholic, at the thought of the death of our great Holy Father, John Paul II. As I stand in the well of this Chamber, it also strikes me as curiously ironic that we come to commemorate the life of John Paul II, who spoke with enormous moral clarity, and I stand staring at the image of Moses, the first of our lawgivers, who defined moral clarity for us in those early beginnings of civilization and humanity.

The early years for John Paul II were a journey of hardship and sacrifice. Born Karol Wojtyla in a small town outside of Krakow in 1920, the same year of my mother's birth, by the way, he was the second of two sons. His mother died when he was but 9 years old, and by the time he was 21, he had lost his dear brother and his father as well.

Young Karol found himself alone. He worked in a rock quarry and then a chemical factory to earn a living and to avoid being deported to Nazi Germany. To fulfill a wish that his father had, young Karol began preparing to give his life to the Lord by studying at an underground, clandestine seminary in Krakow, doing so in secret to avoid the wrath of the Nazis. His faith and belief in God eventually led him to the very chair of St. Peter. As the head of the Holy See, a position he held for more than 26 years, he led his flock longer than any other Pope and certainly longer than any in recent memory.

I was always humbled by this man who was able to exert so much influence on the politics of our world and the direction of mankind, yet had the ability to do so with such a quiet, gentle hand.

One must look no further than the collapse of the Soviet Empire for an example of how much influence he had. While no one person can claim that they were the lone force behind the collapse of communism, there should be no argument that the extent to which John Paul II played in defining it and defeating it was enormous. Along with another great man of his era, Ronald Reagan, they confronted their adversaries face to face and helped defeat this evil, and did so without war.

This man of God, who was once an avid outdoorsman, who skied and hiked the Italian mountainside, who aggressively traveled the globe more than any other Pope, became almost like a family member to everyone in the world, regardless of faith.

He embraced the modern media. John Paul entered the homes and touched the hearts of countless millions with his message of love, truth, devotion, and courage. He was unwavering in his defense of all life, limitless in his forgiveness, including of his own would-be assassin, and without peer as he embraced all the world's faiths and humbly asked forgiveness from our Jewish brethren for a Church and a world that did too little for too long.

Those of us privileged to serve in this hallowed Chamber have the opportunity to meet presidents, prime ministers, kings and queens, the famous and the fortunate of the world. Twice I was in the presence of this Pope, in 1993 in Denver and at the Vatican in 1995.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the essence of this humble man from Krakow transcended humanity. His essence emanated peace, holiness and a sense that surrounding him was a glimpse to all of us of our Creator's promise for eternity. Without so much as a single word, his spirit overwhelmed all who witnessed his being.

``Be not afraid'' became the motto of his remarkable Papacy. Inspired by his commitment to peace, freedom, compassion for the poor and oppressed and for a culture of life, may we also carry on his legacy of truth in our very own lives.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

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

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

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. 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. 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.