Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of granting permanent normal trade relations to China, a vote that this House will face possibly as soon as next month. I consider this to be the most important vote that I will take as a Member of Congress and am strongly in support of it, not just for the economic advantages that it will bring to the U.S., but for the far more important reason of national security and global security, a peaceful world. I think both of these issues are critically at stake in this vote that we will take. What permanent normal trade relations for China means is that the U.S. has negotiated a trade agreement with China. In exchange for giving them permanent normal trade relations, we will get from them dramatic reductions in tariffs across the board on goods and services. This is tied into China's entry in the WTO. But it is important to point out that, regardless of what this body does in permanent normal trade relations, China will probably enter the WTO. The rest of the world has as much to say about that as we do. What we can decide in this House is whether or not we gain the benefits from the permanent normal trade relations treaty that was negotiated with China. In other words, will we begin the economic advantages of reduced tariffs on goods and service across the board to China. There was a lot of concern about the trade deficit with China. What better way to reduce that than to have a trade agreement that lowers China's barriers to our goods but does nothing to change the barriers to their goods coming to our country. It helps level the playing field and would be a tremendous economic advantage for this country. In agriculture, in my own region, in aerospace and software, name it, we would have an advantage of gaining access to the Chinese market and, therefore, help improve our economy. As I pointed out, this does not necessarily mean China will come into the WTO. The rest of the world will decide that issue. But the economics are only a tiny part of it. What is far more important to me is the national security implications, the long-term implications that that has for this country and the rest of the world. We need to peacefully coexist with China. I, for one, do not want another Cold War. I do not want a hostile relationship with China. We must engage with them to prevent that. I believe that we can. We have followed a policy of engagement and we must continue on that if we are to have a peaceful world. Another Cold War could lead to trade wars and can ultimately lead to military wars and World War III. I do not want that. China is a country of 1.2 billion people. It is an emerging power. Whether we are engaged with them or not, they will be an emerging power. I want them to be one that we can peacefully coexist with, and trading with them is a critical first start to that effort. Now, opponents of China typically start out their arguments by pointing out all of the bad things about China, and I will not disagree with any of those. On human rights, on labor rights, on protecting the environment, on their relationship with Taiwan, on basic Democratic freedoms, China has a long way to go. They have a horrible record across the board. And I will rise with all of my colleagues and say that as often as possible and urge China to improve. But it is not as simple as saying, if China has done anything bad, therefore, we should not trade with them. The question is, how are we going to pull them forward? What course of action is going to improve human rights, is going to improve labor rights, is going to improve how China treats Taiwan? Isolation? We tried isolation with Cuba for 40 years. Cuba is a tiny nation not 90 miles off of our coast, and our efforts at isolating them has not done one little bit to improve any of their record on democracy, human rights, or anything. Do we really believe that we can isolate China and pull them forward, a nation of 1.2 billion people with its own power source? If we cut off China, we will be leaning towards a bipolar world that will do nothing to improve human rights. That is why many human right organizations have said that engagement with China and entry of China into the WTO is critical to us having a better relationship with them and critical to improving human rights in China. We must show them what a capitalist democracy can do. If we do, their people will demand the basic freedoms that the rest of us enjoy. To the cut them off and to isolate them is to empower the hardliners in China who want to maintain the brutal dictatorship forever. We must engage with them and pull them forward. Many also argue that because of China's attitude towards Taiwan we should not give them access to the WTO. Taiwan wants China in the WTO. They are the ones most affected by that. And they want it for a very logical reason. In essence, they would be trapped in a room with a bully with nobody around. They want as much company as possible. They want the bright light shined on China and their activities for their own protection. We have many concerns in this area, but giving China PNTR status is going to do more to pull forward those concerns than anything else. I strongly urge our body to support PNTR for China, not just because of the economic advantages, but because it is important to the future of the world.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise also to talk about the H-1B visa issue. I think it is of critical importance that we expand those visas. But that is only part of the solution to that problem. The bill we introduced this morning that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) referenced has a package of ideas that I think will help deal with the larger issue, which is basically filling the high-tech jobs that we have a crushing need for in this country. If we talk to any tech business, they will tell us their number one biggest concern is finding the people to do the work that they have to be done. We have to understand that the technology sector of our technology is the faster growing sector out there. It is generating jobs and generating a strong economy. If we can find the scientists and the engineers and the biologists to fill these jobs, we could grow our economy even more and secure our economic future. We need the people to fill these jobs. The H-1B visa bill that we introduced this morning attacks this in two different directions. One, we go out and try to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. That is just common sense. Why would not we want the best, brightest, and most capable minds in the world here in the U.S., growing our economy and generating jobs for us. We need to expand those numbers and bring those folks in. But we also increase the fee for those H-1B visas and will, therefore, generate $200 million in money to invest in educating our own population to fill those jobs as well. Because this is a long-term problem. Bringing in people from other countries is a short-term solution. We heed to educate our own workforce so that they want to be scientists and engineers and have access to those jobs so they start filling them as well. This is absolutely critical to the future of our economy. I think we should support this bill in the House and in the Senate and hopefully move forward with our economic situation so that we can fill those jobs that need to be filled. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 9, I had to fly home for my wife's ultrasound and missed several votes. On House vote 42 on H.R. 3846 (Minimum Wage/Question of Continued Consideration) I would have voted ``yes.'' On House vote 43 on H.R. 3846 (Minimum Wage/Two-Year Increase) I would have voted ``yes.'' On House vote 44 on H.R. 3846 (Minimum Wage/Recommit) I would have voted ``yes.'' On House vote 45 (Minimum Wage/Passage) I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of H.R. 5 today. This bill is a win-win situation, not just for seniors but for the country as a whole as well. Clearly, it is to the great advantage of seniors to have the opportunity to continue to work, to bring in income and not have their Social Security cut. It is the right thing to do. Seniors, particularly between 65 and 70, still have a lot of bills and a lot of concerns that Social Security cannot meet. Allowing them to work is a way to help them make that up. But it is also a great benefit to our economy. If there is one thing I hear from every business in my district, it is that they cannot find enough workers. It does not matter what the job is; they cannot find enough people to do the jobs they need. Well, we have a wealth of talent out there with great experience, and that is our seniors who can fill those jobs and help our economy. This bill is fair to seniors, excellent for the economy, and I recommend that we support it strongly. I also think it is great that it is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It shows an example of where the House can work together to solve real problems for real people in this country, and I am very proud to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true leader and pioneer who touched the hearts of the people of Washington state. Hazel Wolf, who passed away on January 20, 2000, spent her 101 years as a passionate environmentalist, fervent human rights activist, and a fighter for the underdog. She is a shining example of a person with passion who truly made a contribution to life in the Pacific Northwest in the 20th Century. Born in 1898 in British Columbia, Ms. Wolf led an extraordinary life. During the Depression, employed by the Works Project Administration, she set about unionizing workers. In 1979, she helped to organize the Indian Conservationist Conference. In 1990, Ms. Wolf met a Soviet delegation and held discussions which paved the way for the founding of the Leningrad Audubon Society. Like former President Jimmy Carter and Senator Dan Evans, she was sent as an observer to the 1990 Nicaraguan elections. Ms. Wolf has played a prominent role in environmental efforts in local national and international arenas. In addition to co-founding the Seattle Audubon Society, where she worked as secretary for 26 years, she set up more than 20 other local chapters, like the Black Hills Audubon Society. Ms. Wolf was also the president of the Federation of Outdoor Clubs and editor of its magazine, Outdoor West, member of the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Earth Island Institute. Her endeavors to improve environmental safety in low income inner-city housing were through the Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, which she also co-founded. Ms. Wolf was a recipient of a number of awards. These include the Washington State Department of Game's Award for services in protection of wildlife (1978); the State of Washington Environmental Excellence Award (1978); State University of New York's Sol Feinstein Award for her work with Seattle Audubon's Trailside Series of books on the Northwest; the National Audubon Society's Conservationist of the Year Award (1978); the Association of Biologists and Ecologists of Nicaragua's Award for nature conservation (1988); the People's Daily World's Newsmaker Award; and the Washington State Legislature Award for environmental work. The Women in Communications group bestowed her with their top honor, the Matrix Award for Women of Achievement. Hazel Wolf made an indelible mark on our community, our environment and our heart. She will be missed and I hope the Washington state community will work hard to continue the efforts for the causes she fought so hard for throughout her life.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Inslee amendment and in support of the underlying bill. Everyone says we all agree, we are going to have digital signature, it is just a matter of the details. Unfortunately, the details that are being presented by the opponents of the Inslee amendment and of the Dingell amendment are such that one would, in practical effect, not be able to do digital signature. If, first of all, one does not have uniformity and one is doing something across State lines and one has 50 or maybe even 100 different rules and regulations for how it is going to be done, it makes it very, very difficult to do business in the electronic commerce world. That is what the Dingell amendment would do. That creates a huge problem for the bill. Second of all, it requires that paper be done in addition to the digital signature. Well, if we are going to have to do a paper contract, what is the advantage of doing a digital contract? One merely has to duplicate oneself. Those two provisions basically mean that what the opponents of the Inslee amendment are doing is creating a situation where digital signature will not be a choice that any logical businessman will make. That is why we have to oppose it. Two final points. Consumer protection is clearly protected in this bill. The sentence says this law changes in no way one's contractual protections under consumer protection laws. We are simply doing it digitally instead of by paper. We have the same protections. Lastly, this well, if one goes on a computer it could get lost, the computer could blow up; paper notices get lost all of the time. If one moves and the notice is required to go by mail, many times these notices do not arrive. Whether it is paper or digital, there are challenges in making sure that all of the notices get there. I strongly submit that those challenges are no greater with digital signature than they are with paper, and we are stuck in a lost mindset here thinking that somehow, if it is not paper, it is not real. If we do not do this right, we will not have digital signature. The Inslee amendment does it right. Support it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3075, the bill to revise changes made to Medicare payments as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I strongly support this step forward in making the necessary adjustments to select changes made by the Balanced Budget Act. These changes called for a reduction in Medicare spending of $116 billion over five years, but cuts have actually been closer to $200 million, according to estimates. These reductions are primarily in Medicare reimbursement rates--the amount hospitals and health care providers are reimbursed by the Federal Government for treating Medicare patients. As a result, many health care organizations are becoming unwilling or unable to provide care to Medicare patients. I am concerned that the Congress made in 1997 are beginning to impact seniors whose health care services are affected by the cuts. Seniors who rely on Medicare for their health care coverage are losing access to vital services. This legislation is an important first step in fixing some of the problems and help ensure that seniors are getting the health care they need. What's more, the reimbursement rate cuts by the Balanced Budget Act disproportionately affected Washington state. Washington was one of the most efficient states with regards to waste in the Medicare program, the cuts did not properly account for the differences, and treated each state equally. This bill makes a few steps forward in address this problem. I urge my colleagues to support this important step forward in making needed changes to our Medicare program.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of November 1, I was attending to family business in my district and was unable to vote on H.R. 1714, legislation to provide for digital signatures. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I strongly support this legislation to ensure that our high-technology economy continues to grow and provides consumers more opportunities to conduct business on-line.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, rapid advances in technology have presented challenges to all of us on a number of levels but one of the most profound challenges that our Nation faces is in the area of national security. These rapid advances in technology place new challenges to our folks who are trying to protect our Nation and protect our security interests as they try to figure out how to deal with this new technology. As technology changes basically the old rules do not apply but the challenge that faces us is figuring out what the new rules are. How do we deal with the changes in technology in a way that will protect our national security? The area that I want to talk about this afternoon is in the area of the exportation of certain technology, namely supercomputers or so-called supercomputers, today a lap top almost qualifies as a supercomputer by the old standards, in fact a few of them do, and also the exportation of encryption software, the software that helps encode messages and protect it from outside sources gaining access. In the old days, the method for protecting national security was, if a new weapon was developed on a horizon that presented a threat to us, one of the things we tried to do was to make sure that nobody else had access to it. If it is a product that is developed in the U.S., we try to severely restrict the exportation of that product. That is, in fact, what we have done with encryption software and with supercomputers. We have placed severe restrictions for years on the ability of U.S. companies to export either something that is classified as a supercomputer or encryption software to any place outside the United States, and these restrictions were intended to prevent that technology from getting into the hands of other people. This has not worked, and I rise today to offer a better solution and to offer a solution that will best protect our national security, and that is the critical point here. It is not my argument that we should export this stuff because it is good commercially and the national security losses are minimal. On the contrary, it is my argument that if we do not allow greater exportation of this technology, our national security will be threatened, and let me explain that. It is threatened by two realities. One of them is ubiquity. What that means is that things become easily accessible anywhere in the world. It used to be that a supercomputer was a rather large cumbersome series of machines and boxes that were very difficult to put together and even more difficult to transport. That is no longer the case. You can put together a supercomputer now with the chip that is really basically about the size of the tip of my finger; put together that, pull together seven or eight of those chips, and you have a computer capable of something way beyond what any computer was capable of even a decade ago. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, controlling this becomes very, very difficult. In addition to being small and easily transportable, the other thing that has happened is a lot of other countries have started to catch up in the area of technology. If you want to buy the computer chips that will put together a supercomputer, you do not have to come to the U.S. You have literally hundreds of other options. So we in the U.S. are not able to restrict that. We can restrict our own exports, but that does not stop other countries from having companies develop that product. It is even more true in the area of encryption software. Encryption software is now produced by over a hundred countries. If you want access to top-of-the-line encryption, you can get it from dozens of other places other than the United States of America. We are powerless to control it. Now you may argue, well, so what? At least we can do our part. We can control what the U.S. exports and, therefore, protect national security, at least to the best that we are able. But the problem with that is the second key point I would like to make, and that is something that everybody acknowledges from the FBI to the NSA to the most ardent opponents of exporting technology. They all acknowledge that one of the keys to our national security is for the U.S. to maintain its leadership in technology, and the reason for this is obvious. Technology is critical to our national security. If we are developing the best encryption software, the best computers here in the U.S., then our FBI, our NSA, our national security and Armed Forces units will have access to that information that they will not have if some other country develops it; and if we allow our countries to get ahead of us in the area of both supercomputers and encryption technology, pretty soon nobody will be buying from the U.S. because we will not have the best product. Our industries will die and we will not have access to the best technology. Now recently, after years, the White House has stepped up and expanded our ability to export both supercomputers and encryption technology. I rise today to make the critical point that that is a good move not just for our industry, not just for jobs in the U.S., which is not an insignificant concern, but it is also a good move for our national security, and I want folks to understand that because I think for too long we have been stuck in thinking that has long since been passed by technology. We cannot wrap our arms around technology and keep it here in the U.S.; those days are gone. If we want to protect our national security, we need to maintain our leadership in both the development of the best computers in the world and the development of the best encryption software in the world, and the only way to do that is give U.S. companies access to the foreign markets they so desperately need to maintain that leadership. I am very pleased as a member of the new Democratic Network that the new Democratic Coalition and Caucus have so much to do with pushing this issue, making the White House aware of it, because I think it is critical to the future of our country both economically and in terms of national security, and I urge that we continue down the sensible path to protecting national security.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the issue of technology in our society and how it effects us. We have all heard a lot about it. There are a lot of stories about technology companies booming and how it is changing our lives in everything from the information we get to the entertainment that we choose. But one has to wonder sometimes, as my colleagues know, just exactly how much does high tech effect all of us. We certainly read about the people who are making millions on it in Silicon Valley or elsewhere throughout our country, but how does it effect the rest of us? And that is a question I want to answer tonight because the other part of it is there is a lot of policies that we are advancing here in Congress aimed at helping the high tech industry, and in advancing those policies a lot of people wonder, as my colleagues know, why should we push something that is simply targeted out of narrow industry. Should we not look at the broader good of the country? The argument I want to make tonight is that we are looking at the broader good of the country when we talk about advancing policies to help the high tech industry, and in fact technology and its growth and the economic opportunity that it creates is one of the most important things for all of us in this country as we face the future. As a Democrat and, more specifically, as a member of the new democratic coalition, creating opportunity for me is supposed to be what this place, Congress and government, is all about. I grew up in a blue collar family on the south end of Seattle down by the airport and was very pleased to grow up in a society that gave me the opportunity to do a little hard work to achieve whatever I wanted in life. No one in my family had ever gone to college before. I went to college, went on to law school and basically created the life for myself that I wanted. I did not do it alone; I did it because of the society that we have created here, to make sure that that sort of opportunity is available to as many people as possible. As we look towards the 21st century, one of the key issues in making sure that that opportunity continues to be available to everybody is technology. As my colleagues know, there is no such thing anymore as a low tech area of this country. Technology effects all of us regardless of what our business or what our interests are, and it can have a positive effect. The unemployment rate, the economic growth that we enjoy right now at 30-year low for the unemployment rate, 30-year high for the economic growth is driven in large part by technology, and again that benefits all of us. It also benefits us as consumers. We are finally creeping towards a situation where consumers will have that level of information that is really required for a free market to work. No longer, for instance, do you have to go down to the local car dealership and hope that you are better at arguing than the car dealer who you are going to deal with to get the best price on a car. You can look it up on the Internet, get the price, get an offer, go down and get your car. You can find the lowest price without having to go through that negotiating session, Mr. Speaker, and the same is true for products across the board. That empowers consumers and enables every single family out there to stretch their budget farther. More importantly, I think, is the information that is available, the education that is available to all of us through the use of technology over the Internet. As my colleagues know, you do not necessarily have to go off and get a four-year degree somewhere anymore to learn a skill that is going to enable you to be employable or maybe improve your current job situation. That information, Mr. Speaker, is out there for all of us. So the big point I want to try to make tonight is that when we talk about technology policy, when we talk about, as my colleagues know, making the telecommunications infrastructure available to everybody, increasing exportation of computers and encryption softwear, investing in research and development, we are not just talking about, gosh, as my colleagues know, there happens to be a company in my district that would benefit from this so let us go ahead and help them out so we can employ a few people maybe in central Texas or in northern Massachusetts. What we are talking about is policies that are going to benefit our economy across the board. That is why we in this body should be supportive of this agenda, this agenda that is moving towards trying to make sure that America continues to be the leader in these high tech areas that are going to be so critical to our economic future, Mr. Speaker. Are those policies that we have been advancing include certainly education at the top end of that, investments in making sure that we educate our work force and educate our children and implement the lifelong learning plans that we know are going to be necessary, are critical to reaping the benefits? It is also critical that we build the telecommunications infrastructure necessary to make sure that this high tech economy can flow. In the 19th century building railroads was critical to economic development. In the 20th century building highways was. In the 21st century building a telecommunications infrastructure is going to be critical to our economic health. We need to advance the policies that make that happen. Now there is a lot of debate back here about winners and losers, various telecommunications companies maneuvering for advantages or to disadvantage opponents, but for all of us in this body the Number 1 goal ought to be to build the infrastructure, set up the policies that make it happen, and I guess the biggest thing about high tech for me is that, as I mentioned, being a Democrat, a new Democrat, is about creating opportunity. But that opportunity does not always come through a government program. In fact, the best place that opportunity is created is in a strong economy where the government does not have to get involved, and that is what technology does for us. By enabling businesses to grow in the fast-growing sector of technology we create jobs, we create economic growth that benefits all of us across the board. And I would like to, I guess, conclude by making it specific to my district. As my colleagues know, a lot of people know that I am from the Seattle area, and there is assumption that the only reason I care about technology is because, well, Microsoft just happens to be from that area. They happen to actually be from an area quite different from my district. I represent the district south of Seattle, a blue-collar suburb, mostly Boeing workers, some at Weyerhauser, a blue-collar area that is about as far away from Microsoft, at least psychologically, as Boston is from it geographically. It is a different area. It is folks who do not necessarily work directly in that tax sector. But I know that those people, the people that I grew up with and now represent, are the ones who are going to most benefit from policies that help America maintain its leadership role in technology. Because the folks at Microsoft, the folks in silicon valley, they have got it, okay? They have got it, and then some. We do not really need to worry about taking care of them. We need to make sure that our economy continues to expand in a way to include people like the people I represent, and these policies that will help technology grow will do just that. They will create more and better jobs and a stronger economy so that opportunity gets spread, and it is not locked into just a few folks. I really hope that in this country we can understand that this talk about the digital divide really misses the point. There has always been divisions between people who have knowledge and people who do not. What technology gives us the opportunity for is to shrink that divide, not increase it. All you have to have these days to get access to the same information that everybody else in the world has is a relatively cheap PC, which is down to like almost $500, and a telephone, dial-up service access to the Internet. Technology can be the great equalizer if we build that telecommunications infrastructure that I was talking about. It can create opportunity, not just for the richest of the rich, but most importantly for the poorest of the poor. That is why we need to be smart about these policies and advance them. We also need to be smart and realize that in advancing any industry, but certainly in the technology industry, we need access to overseas markets. Ninety-six percent of the people in the world live some place other than the U.S. That means if we are going to sell stuff we are going to need access to those other markets. We currently consume 20 percent of what the world produces and that is great, but that means the rest of the world is where our markets are available. We need to get access to those things. I really believe that we have the opportunity to succeed and provide opportunity for the people we represent in this country as we never have before. We are already doing that. I think we can do even better, but we have got to be smart about embracing the policies and recognize that technology is not just about what is going on between Microsoft and AOL or NetScape or anybody. What it is about is creating opportunity for everybody in this country and showing that we can use technology to be that great equalizer, to help lift folks up out of poverty or wherever they want to go to realize these opportunities. So when people hear us down here talking about these policies about research and development, telecommunications, patent reform, encryption, exports, whatever, understand that it is not just about talking about some specific company. It is talking about the new economy and the direction that our economy is headed; in fact, in many ways is already at. We need to be there, keep up and make sure that we advance the policies that will make sure that that opportunity spreads to all of us, not just to a select few. I am committed to doing that. The new Democratic coalition that I am proud to be a part of is doing that, and we understand the importance that technology companies and technology policy will play in that. I urge every American to recognize that as well and work hard to advance these policies so we can continue to create the type of opportunity that we have been creating in recent years.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as I went around my district during the August recess and listened to my constituents about what their primary concerns were, I heard the same statement, the same issue, over and over again in different forms but with the same message. That is that the single most important thing the Congress can do is balance the budget and pay down the debt. As we head into September and October, the last 2 months of our session, that should be our number one priority. The budget is on the table. It is up for us to negotiate it and figure out what we ought to do with it. But the top priority in that process ought to be balancing the budget and paying down the debt. We have an incredible opportunity to do this. When we think about where we were 5 or 6 years ago, the fact that deficits were over $200 billion, approaching $300 billion, with projections that they would get as high as $500 billion, running the overall debt up over $7 or $8 trillion, to have us down to the point where we are just this close to balancing the budget is a tremendous accomplishment. I rise today primarily to urge this body to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as we negotiate this issue and all of the issues that have to do with government spending over the course of the next 2 months, let us stick to that goal of making sure that we balance this year's budget and get ourselves in a position to start paying down the debt. There are a couple of issues that always challenge us on that. I think the biggest one is the so-called surplus. I saw ads on television over the break brought to us from Washington, D.C. talking about how there is a surplus in Washington. I hear this conversation continually. One of the rules that I think we should pass in this body is to require all Members to accurately state the budget situation before they talk about any subject, any spending program, any tax cut. The budget situation is basically we have a $5 billion debt or deficit for the year, the fiscal year that will end on October 1. In fiscal year 1999 we are looking at a $5 billion deficit. As I mentioned, that is a significant improvement, but it is still a deficit. All of those surpluses that we are talking about are projected out into the future. So let us not spend them before they actually show up, let us give an accurate picture of where we are at in the budget process, because if we go around telling people that we have some $6 trillion in surpluses, there is going to be momentum built to spend money. I think we need to give an accurate picture of where we are at fiscally. Paying down the debt is the best thing we can do for this country. It can reduce interest rates, which will help business and individuals alike. All we need is the discipline to do it. What I am asking in the next couple of months is that we actually do something historic and change the culture of this place. For too long people have looked to Congresspeople, or Congresspeople have thought this, anyway, and thought, the way I please my constituents is by passing out something to them, a program, a check, a tax cut, something. Whereas I think the single best thing that a Member of Congress can give to his or her constituents is a fiscally responsible, efficient government. Let us make that the standard by which we judge our Members of Congress. Let us not do it program by program, check by check. Let us do it by the overall competence with which we run our government. I will tell the Members, after having talked to my district and listened to my district for the last 3 years, there is a hunger for that type of leadership in this country. People want a Congress that talks to them straight about the fiscal picture, that performs their job in a responsible and efficient manner, does not simply come along and promise big, grand, high things for all the years to come. They are looking for that efficiency, for that responsibility. As a Democrat and as a member of the New Democrat Coalition, I want my party, obviously, to be the one that gives it to them. But actually, my biggest hope is that both parties will recognize the desire for that and we will both give it to them, as we head towards the October 1 deadline for the next budget. We have a great chance to get there. We have a strong economy, high growth, low unemployment, low inflation. We are headed in the right direction. I urge this body and my colleagues to do the work over the course of the next 2 months that gets us there, so we can all go back to our constituents and I think give them the most significant thing that any congressional body has given their delegation in years, and that is a balanced budget and a step towards paying down that huge Federal debt that many of us thought we would never have a chance to pay down. Let us seize this opportunity and do what is right for the American people: balance the budget and pay down the debt.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I support tax cuts, but I also support fiscal responsibility. This bill only does the former. We will hear and have heard ad nauseam from the opposition about how this bill protects Social Security and reduces the debt. I guess if you say something often enough, you figure you will make it true, the facts be damned. This bill cuts taxes by nearly $1 trillion, period. It does not do anything to protect Social Security. And it does not do anything for debt reduction. All it is is a $1 trillion tax cut over 10 years. Let us look at those numbers that they use to assume how they are going to cover all of these promises that they have made. We hear of a $3 trillion surplus over 10 years. Right off the top, $2 trillion of that is in the Social Security surplus. Then we hear that the folks on the majority side are kindly setting aside this $2 trillion for Social Security. They do not have to. It is already there. It is in the Social Security trust fund. Furthermore, that $2 trillion regrettably does not do anything to help us with the coming shortfalls in Social Security. That is the current system. That is not doing anything for Social Security. That is just covering the existing debts. It does not do anything to help with the coming problem. So to say that you are setting that $2 trillion aside for Social Security is meaningless. Yet that is what we continue to hear. So we are left with $1 trillion. Well, that is all gone in tax cuts. Where is the debt reduction? We hear from them that they have all this debt reduction, which is not in the bill and the numbers are clear: $3 trillion over 10 years, $2 trillion is gone for Social Security, $1 trillion is left and it is done in tax cuts. Yet we hear this constant rhetoric, we are doing all of these things, debt reduction, Social Security, occasionally they throw in Medicare. It does not add up. It is overpromising. It is based on projections, furthermore. And those projections include two key projections: One, it already locks in 20 percent cuts in existing spending over those 10 years to get to that number. We have not even begun to do those cuts. In fact we just declared the census an emergency yesterday to get around them this year, much less 10 years from now. Furthermore, these projections count on continued growth, no recession. So if any of this does not come to pass, we do not even have that $1 trillion that is already to be done in tax cuts. Lastly, we hear that this is all about giving money back to the people and letting them make their decisions. Medicare and Social Security are two things the government does. Should we get rid of those programs to give the money back? Some programs need to be funded. The government does need to do some things.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of funding to help the Northwest Region respond to the listings of 13 salmon and steelhead populations under the Endangered Species Act and to implement the recently signed Pacific Salmon Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. I understand that the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee was unable, under the current allocations, to provide funding for these administration requests. Unfortunately, this puts our region in a very difficult position for trying to comply with the federal law. In March, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the salmon and steelhead populations whose habitat encompasses nearly the entire west coast. In the Puget Sound region, which I represent, we are working to respond to these listings. The listings threaten to completely halt all routine activities in the area such as development, operations of ports, and basic transportation projects. Our state has responded positively, with both the state and local government taking a proactive approach to dealing with these problems, but federal funds are critical. Currently, we are working with the National Marine Fisheries Services to develop locally-driven, scientifically credible recovery strategies to restore these populations but we cannot do this alone. I ask that we find the federal funding to help address this situation. In addition, I am extremely please about the recently announced agreement between the U.S. and Canada on the Pacific Salmon Treaty which sets harvest and conservation measures for the multi- jurisdictional salmon populations. This agreement solves a number of long-standing disputes and is an incredibly important step for saving the salmon in the Northwest region. Now, to ensure that the necessary conservation and restoration goals are met, the White House has asked Congress to create an endowment fund for both the Northern and Southern boundary areas. I strongly support Congress finding the funding to ensure implementation of this historic agreement.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, air power is critical for how we fight wars and respond to international incidents. Americans place an immeasurable value on life, and in war. Mr. Speaker, air dominance saves lives. Sweeping the skies clean of enemy air craft is essential for protecting our most vulnerable troops on the ground, and the pilots who fly follow-on strike missions. Air dominance cannot be guaranteed with aircraft on par with the enemy--it can only be achieved with superior capabilities. Mr. Speaker, the F-22 is the American guarantor of air supremacy. In scenarios where the United States need to respond to a rogue nation or terrorist group with a punitive strike, advanced fighters can deliver the message with precision. This is an important factor in lowering collateral damage and limiting the number of allied lives put at risk. As in Kosovo and the Gulf War, I believe air power will continue to be the primary player in how the United States responds to conflict. Mr. Chairman, we cannot cut funding for F-22 procurement. Tactical fighters take 15 years to research, develop, and mature. If we want to maintain our air dominance in the future, say in the year 2010, we need to develop and test these air dominance fighters today. Currently, no other tactical air program combines the breakthrough technologies of integrated avionics, supercruise, thrust vectoring engines, and stealth into one aircraft. With the world-wide proliferation of SAMs, our pilots must take advantage of the F-22's supercruise, speed and stealth to complete their mission and return home safely. By investing in leap- ahead technologies, we can save the lives of our future war fighters; we cannot invest in yesteryear technology. The F-22 is our top fighter program, no near term or long term substitute exists. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support full funding of the F-22 program.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about fiscal responsibility, the budget deficit and hopefully paying off the debt. We have a very promising situation right now where we are finally headed towards balancing the budget. It was not too long ago when that seemed like an impossible dream. I remember in 1990 when we looked at budget deficits growing on a yearly basis, stacked on top of an already multi-trillion dollar debt, it seemed impossible to think that we would ever dig our way out of that hole, but thanks to a strong economy, the private sector kicking in and some good decisions made by both sides of the aisle and by President Clinton's administration, we are to the point where we almost have a yearly balanced budget. Now, we still have a $5.6 trillion debt to deal with, but we are headed in the right direction, for the moment. That is why I rise to speak this evening, because the ``for the moment'' part could change. As we head into the budget negotiations that are starting in earnest in both chambers and at the White House, we need to be very careful not to lose the progress that we have gained and not to, in essence, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory which we still have plenty of time to do. I think there are a couple of ways this might happen. The first way is when we start throwing numbers around of the surplus. We have heard the numbers in the trillions of dollars about how much money we have got lying around. I want to try this evening to clarify exactly what we are talking about, because there are a number of variables in these numbers that often do not come with the rosy scenarios that various politicians are laying out for people to hear. We have heard, for instance, that we have and will run up, as currently projected, $6 trillion in surpluses over the course of the next 15 years. There are a number of problems with this scenario. First of all, of that $6 trillion, better than half, almost, I think it is like $3.1 trillion, will be ran up in the Social Security trust fund. Any surplus that we have in the Social Security trust fund is not money that we can spend because it is money that we borrow from that trust fund with a promise to pay it back plus interest so that we can meet the obligations of the Social Security trust fund. If we were to take that money and treat it as a surplus and spend it, we would in essence--not in essence, we would--be spending money twice. That is exactly the sort of thing that got us in trouble in the 1980s. If you spend money twice, you wind up in debt because you do not have it when you need it. So right away we lose half of that 15-year figure, better than half of that 15-year figure. You could still look at that and say, ``Gosh, $2.9 trillion over 15 years, that is still a lot of money.'' It is, but it presumes that our existing budget of all spending will be reduced by 20 percent. Not only will it not increase but we will make cuts of 20 percent. This was part of the 1997 balanced budget agreement that occurred before our economic situation got rosier and more money poured into the coffers. I do not want to be one to predict the future, but having been around this place for the last year or so and listening to people talk about all the various programs, from defense to education to you name it that people feel are underfunded, much less in need of a 20 percent cut, I find it very hard to believe that over the course of that 15 years we are actually going to have that 20 percent reduction. So if we assume that again, we are going to get in trouble. That puts us in a position where you realize there is not that much money there. Lastly, and most importantly, these are projections, estimates. Now, we have to do projections and estimates. You have to sort of guess, if you will, at what your budgets are going to look like so you can plan for the future. That is acceptable, but I would not count our chickens before they hatch. Because that 15-year projection is based on 15 years of continued growth and low inflation. Now, granted the growth that is projected is lower than we have had in the last year or two, as we have had the long peacetime expansion, the longest that we have had in a while, but still there are times when revenues go down instead of up, when estimates get worse instead of better. I know this as every Member of this Chamber ought to know. Those times happened throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s. We had projected balanced budgets at, gosh, I do not know how many times throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but the numbers always came in worse than expected, many times far worse than expected, dramatically growing the deficit instead of reducing it. So if we assume that this 15-year period is going to produce continued growth, continued low inflation, we are asking for trouble. I would suggest that a more modest approach is at most let us assume that maybe half of that is going to happen and if the other half happens, fine, when it happens, then we can use it for tax cuts or needed spending, but let us not spend it before we get it. And, fourth, the final point, we should not forget the $5.6 trillion debt that we have hanging over us. It would be nice to use a lot of this money to pay down that debt, to get us back to the point where we can have the fiscal responsibility that we need in this country. We spend over $200 billion, somewhere around $220 billion a year, in interest on the debt. That is money that cannot go for any program, cannot go for any tax cut, it is merely servicing our debt. If we were to pay down that debt, we could reduce that amount and have even more money and a more fiscally responsible budget. Let me suggest that now is the time to do this, at a time when we have between 4 and 6 percent growth depending on the quarter, at the time when we have virtually nonexistent inflation. These are unprecedented times, at least unprecedented in the last 40 or 50 years in this country, and if we do not seize this opportunity at a time when unemployment is 4.2 percent, to be fiscally responsible, we will never do it when times turn bad. Because when times turn bad is precisely when you need to spend more money on things like education and infrastructure, when you need to give tax cuts to help people who are struggling due to the tough economic times. Now is the time to be fiscally responsible. I want to touch on one more point on that. We have recently heard a lot of talk about tax cuts. Truthfully there are not many politicians who do not like tax cuts. We would love to be able to give as many of them as possible and in as many places as possible, but only in my opinion if they do not jeopardize fiscal responsibility. The plan that has been rolled out by the majority Republican Party in recent days calls for $850 billion, or $875 billion, depending on whose figures you believe, over the next 10 years. Right away, please note that they estimate over the next 10 years, whereas the surplus figures that have been thrown around in the newspapers estimate over 15 years. So over 15 years, that $850 billion is even more. In fact, if you take that $850 billion, put it over the 10 years like it is, then take our projected surpluses back over 10 years, and that is the chart that I have with me today, you will see that we have a figure here that shows that the combined surpluses over those two periods are somewhere around $1 trillion. If you then also add into it the fact that if you spend the $850 billion or if you give it to tax cuts basically, you will not be able to pay down the debt at all, you jack up your interest payments by almost $200 billion and you completely exhaust this projected surplus in 10 years. So we better do absolutely as well every single year and we better be prepared to cut the budget 20 percent or we can forget about fiscal responsibility. The number is simply too high. Yes, we ought to do tax cuts. I completely support that. I completely agree with that. We ought to target it to the middle class, target it to the people who maybe have not necessarily benefited as much from the recent economic boon as others. But we should not exhaust the entire projected surplus on these tax cuts, putting ourselves in a position where we cannot even begin to pay down the debt and probably will not be able to have a balanced budget if the numbers come in worse than they are currently projected. That is not fiscally responsible. Let me throw one other frightening statistic at you as we are looking at these happy numbers of the projected surpluses. We project out 15 years, which is an interesting time frame to pick particularly when you factor in positive economic projections, because it is right about at that time period, the year 2014, when the costs of Medicare and Social Security are really going to accelerate. If you project it out a few more years, you would see how much that starts to hurt us as the baby boom generation starts to retire in earnest. We are going to be in big trouble. All of these factors and statistics need to be considered. The fact that half the money is in the Social Security trust fund, the fact that right at the end of our projections we get hit with a huge bill for Medicare and Social Security. These are things that mitigate how much money we have. My grave concern, and I have seen it already, and had people come up to me, program after program, tax cut after tax cut is thrown at us and everyone says, ``Well, gosh, you ought to be able to do it. You've got this multi-trillion dollar surplus that everybody keeps talking about.'' I hope in my remarks I have explained a little bit tonight that we do not have that multi-trillion dollar surplus in the bank by any stretch of the imagination. I really think that the single best thing this Chamber can do for the people of our country right now in these strong economic times is balance the budget and pay down the debt. Then if we hit tough economic times, we will have a little leeway to borrow some money, help prime the pump, help get the economy back going again, but not if we cannot do it now. If we cannot do it now in these prosperous times, we will never do it. And God help us if it gets to the point where actually the projections go down, if we experience a year of negative growth, which by the way does happen, if inflation ticks back up closer to double digits than just one or two, then we will really be in a fix. Now is the time to prepare for the future. I would like to close by just making one other point. This is tough. I recognize that. I am not going to stand here and say that fiscal responsibility is easy. Because we have a lot of needs in this country. I could tick off a dozen off the top of my head, defense spending, education spending, veterans, health care for seniors and children, environmental protection programs, and that is just a few. We also could have a tremendous need for a lot of tax cuts that would be tremendously helpful to the middle class and others. I know that. Every day in my office a number of people come in the door and request one of those programs. But the obligation and the responsibility of this Congress is to recognize that we are not the last people in this country who are going to need those things and if we spend all the money now, if we basically have no discipline and simply want to pass out the goodies to make as many people happy as is humanly possible, then 10, 20, 30 years from now our children, our grandchildren, those of us who are still around, are not going to have anything for these same programs. In the year 2020, 2050, they are going to need education and transportation and health care and defense spending every little bit as much as we need it now but they will not have it because we in our fiscally irresponsible way will have spent their money. I grew up in the 1970s and the 1980s when prior Congresses were in essence spending all of my money. I did not much like it and I darn sure do not want to do it to future generations because I do not have the discipline to do what is right and what is best for this country and what is responsible. Do not let rosy scenarios and pie in the sky numbers fool you about where the budget is going and what is going to happen. Demand fiscal responsibility from this Congress, demand that the budget gets balanced and we pay down the debt.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the subject that is I think most on the minds of my constituents and most of the constituents throughout our country, and that is the subject of education. It is definitely the building block for the future; and as we head towards a more and more complicated future with more and more rapid change, that education basically life-long education is going to be critical to the prosperity of our country and certainly of our people. We seem to have an unfortunate choice that is laid out before us if we are watching public policy makers on education; and that choice is, either bash public education or blindly support it. I am here to say that I do not think that is the choice that is put before us, and I would urge public policy makers to find a middle ground. Basically, support for public education makes a great deal of sense. It has educated somewhere around 90 percent of the population. I personally benefited from it, as have millions of others. It has done a wonderful job of educating our children. It is one of the better things we did in the 20th century. But just because we support it does not mean that we should do so blindly or that we should never ask for reforms or never ask for it to be held accountable or to improve or for standards to be set. I worry that, given that false choice between supporting and bashing public education, that we will miss out on that opportunity to reform it and set the standards that we should set. That is why I as a member of the New Democratic Coalition, a group of moderate Democrats. We are searching for that middle ground to try to find an area where, yes, we can support public education, but we can also set the standards and make the changes we need to improve it. It makes a great deal of sense to say that we should spend money on school construction and to reduce class sizes, and I think we should. I think it is wrong to run away from a Federal obligation to help public education. But it is equally wrong to continue the current Federal role in public education in the manner that we have set it up. That manner is totally bureaucratic and process oriented and not results oriented and not oriented towards encouraging local control, which could make an incredible difference in our education system. So, yes, the Federal Government should support public education, but we should stop driving dollars out the way we are driving them out now, which is basically in a blizzard of programs, some 300 or 400. I have actually tried to count them over the course of the last 6 months and still have not quite tracked them all down. They are designed totally along the lines of process. If one meets certain standards, one gets a certain amount of money. Basically, we have turned our school district personnel in this country into people who are more interested and spend more of their time, I am sorry, they are not more interested, they are forced to spend more of their time justifying their existence to the federal bureaucracy than they are spending time educating our children. Why do they do that? Because they have to get the money. They have to fill out a variety of grants and a variety of programs to prove that they deserve the money in the first place, and then prove that they are spending it exactly how we told them to in the second place. All of this takes away time from the classroom. I believe that it would make a good deal more sense to drive those dollars out far more narrowly and to drive them out based on standards and based on actual accountability and accomplishments. Instead of just driving money out based on whether or not they filled out a grant form properly, we should take a look at it and say, let us set a measurable standard for the school district. Let them set the standard. It does not have to be driven down from the national government. Then measure them against their own standard in the future and reward improvement. Reward people who are accountable and are moving forward in education instead of just those who fill out the proper grant form. I think this would help in two regards. One, it would give the right incentives to school district to work towards improving achievement for their students as opposed to work toward meeting some requirement that has been set by the Federal Government. I will give one example of that. In my home State, for a while, we drove the money out for special ed based on how many special ed students there were, period. There was no ceiling on it. So slowly but surely we saw the creeping increase in the number of special ed students in school districts, not because there were more coming in, but because the school districts knew, if they could qualify more as special ed, they would get more money. Did this do anything to improve the quality of education? No, but that was the incentive that we gave the school district. Let us give the right incentive. Let us tell them that we will drive more dollars out to the degree to which they are improving the academic achievement of their students. Another good idea that I have seen is one that was introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on alternative certification of teachers. In addition to encouraging local control and higher standards and accountability, we also need to make sure that we have the level-best teachers out there and as many of them as we need. The idea of setting up alternative certification procedures so that professionals who may have worked in a variety of different fields who now want to get into teaching can without necessarily having to go through the normal certification process. If we have somebody who has been a professional physicist for a number of years, it does not make sense to say to them they somehow cannot teach physics. Let us take advantage of that brain power we have out there to help our students. But the biggest point I want to make today is one does not have to simply blindly support education. Support it, but expect results.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time, even though we disagree on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the amendment and strongly support it. I think the issue of parole is not what we are dealing with here. However an individual State wants to handle it, wants to pass out the sentencing, is fine with us. The question is are they going to pass out strong sentences? If they do it under a parole system and hold them for longer, the point of this bill is to try to give incentives to States to hold the most dangerous of criminals, murderers, rapists and child molesters for as long a period as possible so that they do not reoffend. We are trying to drive dollars out to encourage that decision and to move them in that direction for a very good reason. We want to protect the citizens of our country. There are many reasons for punishment in crimes, but one of the biggest is to protect society with a very simple notion. If an individual who is given to committing crimes is behind bars, they are not victimizing other people. That is one of the clearest ways to protect our citizens, is to lock them up when they have made it clear that they are dangerous to the citizens. Right now, too often crimes as serious as rape and child molestation have very short sentences and those people are free to reoffend all over again. We need to do a better job of protecting our citizens, and I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for putting forward this modest piece of legislation to try to do that, to try to give States the encouragement they need, the financial encouragement, to hold these dangerous offenders for a longer period of time. There are many reasons why the crime rate has fallen in recent years, but one that should not go unnoticed is that we have increased punishment for crimes of all types, but certainly of the most serious nature. That keeps dangerous offenders off the streets so they cannot reoffend so that we can protect future victims. I again commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for bringing this piece of legislation forward and hope that the effect of it will be to save lives and to keep dangerous offenders behind bars where they cannot victimize the people that we represent.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important policy issue in this country and that is the policy of export controls and specifically the controls that we place on the exportation of technology. There has been a lot of talk about this issue today on the national defense bill, a lot of concerns about the exportation of technology. And I want to make a national security argument for changing some of those controls and allowing actually for the greater exportation of technology. We heard a lot of talk today about the dangers of technology and what it can do to our national security. I think this is a misguided policy based on Cold War philosophies that fail to recognize the changes that have taken place in our economy and the emergence of a new information- based economy and what that means for all manner of policy decisions, particularly in the area of exportation of technology. The situation we have right now is we have very strict restrictions on exportation of certain technology, most notably encryption software and any sort of so-called supercomputer. I say ``so-called'' because, basically, the laptops that we have on our desks today just a couple of years ago were considered supercomputers. That shows how fast computers advance and how much our policy fails to keep up with it. The national security argument that I wish to make is based on the fact that our national security is best protected by making sure that the United States maintains its leadership role in the technology economy, maintains a situation where we in the U.S. have the best encryption software and the best computers. If we place restrictions on the exportation of that technology, that will soon fail to be the case. We will cease to be the leaders in this technology area and we will cease to be able to provide that very important R&D to the military that enables them to be the leaders in technology. Our current policies are creating a situation where more and more countries of the world have to go elsewhere to get access to either encryption software or computers of any kind. And that is a very important point in this debate. The limitations that we place on the exportation of technology is based on two premises. One is correct but misinterpreted, and the other is incorrect. The one that is correct but misinterpreted is that technology matters in national security. That is absolutely true. Computers, software, all manner of technology give us a stronger national defense, and all manner of technology can be a potential threat to any country's national security. That is true. But the mistaken application comes from the belief that somehow the United States can place its arms around that technology and not allow the rest of the world to get it. That might have been true in the 1940's and in the 1950's. But in the new economy, in the Internet age and in the age of technology, it is not true. Encryption is the best example. We believe that we are not going to allow the rest of the world access to the best encryption technology by restricting our Nation's companies' ability to export it. But we can download 128 byte encryption technology off the Internet. Dozens of countries, not the least of which are Canada, Russia, Germany, export that technology. Also not to mention the fact that if we want to buy the best encryption technology possible, we can go to just about any software store in the world, slip it into the pocket of our suit, and climb on an airplane and go anyplace we want to go. Our restricting our Nation's companies' ability to export encryption technology is not stopping so-called rogue nations or anybody out there from getting access to that technology. What it is doing is it is having them get that technology from some other country and also hurting our companies' ability to export to legitimate users of encryption technology. And in the long-run, or actually, given the way the technology economy works, in the much shorter run than we would like, we are going to cease to be the leaders in encryption technology. The rest of the world is going to overtake us. And then our national security is really going to be threatened because we are not going to be the best and we are going to face other countries that have better technology than us. The same is true in the area of computers. We are but a couple years away from creating a situation where most countries in the world will not be able to export so-called supercomputers to the rest of the country. What we are a couple of years away from, forgive me, I did not exactly explain that right, is having our basic laptop not being able to be exported because of the 2,000 MTOPS limit that we place on exportation. I think that there is a false argument that has been set up in this debate, and that is that this is a choice between national security and commerce. And I could spew off a whole bunch of statistics about how important technology is to the growth of our economy and how important access to foreign markets is to that growth of our technology sector of our economy. And all of that is true. But a lot of people look at that and say, well, you are just arguing put commerce ahead of national security. We are not arguing that. National security, as well as commerce, demands that we change the export control policies that we place on technology.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Terminal Park Elementary School in Auburn, Washington, for their selection as a Blue Ribbon School. It is an honor to have this school, located in the Ninth Congressional District, as one of only 266 schools nationwide awarded this prestigious honor. The Blue Ribbon School award is given to schools that do an outstanding job of meeting local, state, and national goals, and display the qualities of excellence that are necessary to prepare our young people for the challenges of the next century. More specifically, to receive the award, schools must have strong leaders; a clear vision, and sense of mission that is shared by all connected with the school; high-quality teaching; challenging, up-to-date curriculum; policies and practices that ensure a safe environment conducive to learning; a solid commitment to parental involvement; and evidence that the school helps all students to achieve high standards. I commend the staff, students, and parents of Terminal Park Elementary School for their hard work in building an effective community for learning. The focus on literacy and assuring students obtain the essential skills needed for life is absolutely necessary and I am glad we have Terminal Park Elementary School as an example for how we need to work toward educating our children.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Exactly. So we need to set up a system that gives the incentives to invest in these sorts of products. It is not just biotech, it is in every single aspect of the high-tech community, giving the incentive to put the money into research helps us move forward. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. The gentleman is quite welcome. It is nice to have a physicist in Congress to help out with these very difficult issues. I just want to wrap up this topic by emphasizing how important it is and how it touches our lives. I think one of the biggest challenges we have right now as a society is to make sure that the message gets out that technology is for all of us, that it affects all of us in a variety of different levels. I think there is a tendency, and in fact, I was never that computer literate until a few years ago, and I always thought, you know, of first computers and then the Internet that that is just not something that I deal with. Well, it is something that everybody is going to have to deal with, and it is a good thing. It is a positive change in our lives. Yes, it is change and change is difficult, but it will open up windows of opportunity that we could never imagine if we simply understand that change, understand what the information economy has brought to us, and how our society needs to adjust to it. I think in the long run it is going to give us a better society and a stronger society, but it is not only a matter of embracing it but understanding it, and advancing the policies that are going to make sure that we all benefit from it. The Internet has the ability to connect people, just for example. I have heard some people say, well, they are worried that the Internet is going to divide our society even more between the haves and have nots, those that have technology, those that do not. I see the Internet just the opposite. The Internet basically enables anybody, for the ever-decreasing price of a laptop and the ability to hook up a telephone line, to get access to information that was previously the exclusive purview of the few. You would have to go off to institutes of higher learning or know people who were highly educated in order to get access to this information. Now it is right there on our computers, virtually anything we could imagine, for us to access for a very cheap price. That has the possibility, I think, to really broaden the opportunity of this country, to make it more inclusive and bring more people along on these issues. Government has a role to play. Sometimes that role is getting out of the way. As I mentioned, do not regulate the Internet, and do not overregulate the telecommunications industry so people do not have the incentives necessary to build that all-important infrastructure.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it has a more positive role to play, like in education, giving people access to higher education, continuing education, through grants, loans, incentives to companies, whatever. That is an active role the government can play. So it is a matter of balancing between those two things. Sometimes government needs to get out of the way, sometimes it needs to help, but more than anything, it needs to understand, needs to understand what the new economy is and how to make it best work for all of our citizens.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. And there are many that never will turn a profit.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Actually, I should point out that the gentleman from New Jersey is not just a Congressman, he is also a physicist, which means he actually understands the details of a lot of this stuff a lot better than I do, and I am wondering if the gentleman could offer us any perspective, because research in dealing with high technology is something that the gentleman has some background on in his work as a physicist. I wonder if the gentleman could apply that in some of the work that he has done and how important it is and what can be developed, particularly concerning research and development, and how that can be applied.