Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, one challenge that we have in the U.S. House of Representatives, in Congress, is the overzealousness to spend more money. Of course, the money has to come from taxpayers throughout the United States that pay taxes into the Federal system. What many politicians have discovered is that the more programs they start and the more money they spend, the more popular they are back home and the greater the likelihood they are going to be reelected. So members of congress take new pork-barrel projects home and end up on the front pages of the paper or on television: ``Congressman such-and- such is giving you more government services.'' I think we have to remind ourselves that all of this money comes from taxpayers. I see a lot of young people, Mr. Speaker, in the gallery; and they are the generation at risk. As we increase spending, as we increase borrowing, what we are doing in effect is increasing the mortgage, the debt, that these young citizens are going to have to pay off some day, and probably increasing the likelihood that their taxes are going to have to continue to rise as the size of government gets larger and larger. One concern that I have that has been in a lot of the media and newspapers is the generosity of the farm bill that was passed in terms of giving million-dollar payments to many of the very, very large farmers in the United States. I met with Senator Grassley last week, and we are trying to strategize how we can change that farm bill so that we have some kind of a cap, some kind of a limit on those exceptionally large million-dollar-plus payments that are going to the super-large landowners in this country. We are looking now at the appropriation bills and language we might put in the appropriation bills. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat complicated, so we have sort of hoodwinked a lot of the American people saying, there are limits on the price support that farmers can receive. But there is a loophole. That loophole is called ``generic certificates,'' and that means that when you reach the limit on monetary price supports, you can still forfeit the grain back to the government, and the government will give you a certificate that a farmer can exchange for money, because the limits are on cash payments to farmers and certificates are not considered a cash payment. That ends up being a loophole, allowing the very large farmers to get millions of dollars in price support benefits. Mr. Speaker, we have a system in Congress where seniority tends to rise you to the top in terms of being a committee chairman. Right now agriculture is pretty much dominated in terms of leadership by members from Texas. We have the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture from Texas; we have the ranking member of that committee, that is the top ranking Democrat, from Texas. Also the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture is from Texas. When it turns out that Texas is one of the top States in the Nation that uses this generic certificate, if you will, loophole, then we see great political pressure to continue that loophole provision. I am in hopes there can be a better understanding by the American people, by this Congress, of what the loophole is; and that it is reasonable to set limits on price support payments. Our public policy should be to help and hopefully strengthen the traditional family farm in this country. That family farms might be 500 or 5,000 acres, but it is not the 80,000-acre farms. Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying I am hopeful we can, in our appropriation bill, come up with some language to have an effective limitation on these exceptionally large payments that go to the exceptionally large farmers.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Congress is faced with two difficult votes coming up. One is to start a prescription drug program for seniors. The other is to increase the debt limit. I see a certain degree of irony in the fact that, while we are increasing the debt, or, if you will, the mortgage on our kids for them to pay off in the future, at the same time we are voting to expand and implement the largest, most expensive entitlement program that we have had in many, many years. It is a challenge. But everybody needs to realize that it is going to be the young workers, that sometimes are in a more difficult financial situation than the seniors, that are going to have to pay increased taxes for a giant increase in the Medicare program and the cost of increased debt. In other words taxpayers pay for the prescription drugs for seniors. It is coming to grips with that irony that is the challenge; I think we need to move very carefully in our decisions of what new welfare programs we enact and how we pay back the increased debt.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to my colleagues' attention to a meeting I had yesterday with Senator Grassley. We talked about the fact that there is no limitation on payments in the farm bill. We talked about the danger and the inappropriate farm policy, the inappropriate public policy for this Congress to give most of the farm support benefits to a very small percentage of the farmers. We are now, because there is no real limit on those price subsidy payments, giving millions of dollars of payments to the very biggest farmers. I think it is going to be bad for farmers in the long run, and what we are doing is we are giving larger advantage to those great superfarms at the sacrifice of the traditional family farms. Work with us as we look for ways in the appropriation bills or elsewhere to have some kind of limit on farm payments so that we bring back and support what should be in farm policy, and that is supporting the traditional family farm.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, USFA has just recently completed its peer review of the applications for this year. Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety: $882,539,097 representing 58 percent of the applications. Fire Fighting Vehicles: $1.26 billion representing 37 percent of the applications. Emergency Medical Services: $35,174,783 representing two percent of the applications. Fire Prevention Programs: $30,580,741 representing three percent of the applications. Volunteer/Combination fire departments: 17,786 applications requesting more than $1.9 billion. Career fire departments: 1,733 applications requesting more than $287 million. This large number of requests by departments demonstrates just how significantly many fire departments are lacking the most basic of firefighting equipment. Last year, only 4% of applicants received awards--through a peer reviewed process, which is the fairest, most effective way to distribute these funds. Two years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing a grant program to help fire departments enhance their ability to respond to fire and fire-related hazards. The program, known as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, makes competitive, peer-reviewed awards to fire departments for basic needs such as training and equipment. In only its second year, the program has been extremely popular among the firefighting community and was appropriated at $360 million for fiscal year 2002. We invite you to co-sponsor H.R. 4548, which would protect the Assistance to Firefighters Grants as a program separate and distinct from the Administration's newly created initiative within FEMA aimed at helping emergency service personnel prepare for and respond to terrorist incidents. The fire service community has overwhelmingly opposed any consolidation of these two programs, concerned that it would negatively impact the grant program or possibly even eliminate it altogether. These programs, while both very important to first responders, serve distinct needs. The efficient and cost effectiveness of the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program has been of great benefit to America's fire service. Congressmen Hoyer, Weldon of PA, and I ask your support as a cosponsor of this legislation that retains the current provisions of the program (authorized at $900 million), as administered by the U.S. Fire Administration. To sign on as a cosponsor, contact me or Dan Byers at 225-5064.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise before you today to recognize one of my constituents, Jerry Sacharski, the inventor of Tee-ball. It is not everyday that a Congressman is given the opportunity to pay tribute to a man who has done so much to expand the appeal of America's Pastime of baseball to so many children. In 1956, Jerry Sacharski became aware of the difficulty children were having when attempting to use hand-eye coordination that was necessary for bringing the bat in contact with the ball when it was pitched. Because of this lack of coordination in younger children, for years baseball opportunities for children had consisted only of little league teams for children 11 and 12 years of age, and baseball leagues for children over 14. This was not acceptable to Jerry. Instead of simply perpetuating the lack of opportunities for younger children, Jerry acted and came up with a system that we all take for granted today. By using metal piping, pieces of rubber, and part of a garden hose he ingeniously created the first batting tee, thereby securing up to four extra years of fun and experience with baseball's fundamentals for interested children. After all, it can only be an advantage for children to be able to practice catching, fielding, and throwing in a game environment four or five years before they otherwise would. Helping children reach their potential is nothing new for Jerry. For many years he was a teacher at Albion Public High School. After he started teaching, Jerry took it upon himself in 1954 to head up the Albion recreation department's summer baseball program. Because of this position, he was able to see the lack of opportunity for younger children that two years later would drive him to develop one of the largest innovations in youth sports. Because of Jerry Sacharski, millions of children across the United States of America, have participated in Tee-ball leagues for over forty years. It is innovators like Jerry, who make life more enjoyable for millions of children, who are so important to the social fabric of our nation. Michigan is very proud of Jerry Sacharski and children around the world appreciate his contribution.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I just want to suggest that some of us agree with the President in where it is appropriate to have the Sea Grant Program administered. I just would like to reinforce for our future consideration the possibility and the logic of having this under the National Science Foundation because research is so important as part of the Sea Grant Program as we most effectively and efficiently move ahead with this issue. It is especially important to the State of Michigan, and I am sure the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) will counsel with NSF as we proceed under his jurisdiction for Sea Grant. But as we look at next year and the year after, I think it is important that we acknowledge what the administration has suggested in the most appropriate place for the jurisdiction of this program.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, passing on to my colleagues and the American people a predicament that Congress is now facing related to spending. How big should the Federal Government be, how much should we tax the American citizens in order to accommodate what we think is important and necessary spending now. And one of the problems with the overzealousness of Members of Congress to spend is that we either increase taxes to accommodate that spending or we increase borrowing. Right now, the debt of the Federal Government is a little over $6 trillion. We have a law, though, that says that we cannot have a debt that is greater than what is approved by law, passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President; and that debt limit now is $5.95 trillion. Yet the Federal debt actually is now $6.019 trillion. How does that happen? We are playing political games. There is a loophole that the last administration and this administration claim exists in current law to use surplus civil service retirement funds and pretend that is not borrowing subject to the debt limit. They use those extra dollars coming in from the deductions of Federal employees to increase Federal Government spending. The ultimate problem still is how much should we spend. When I first ran for Congress in 1992, the percentage of gross domestic product, spent for the Federal budget was just a little bit over 22.2 percent, of GDP. Five years later it was 19.6 percent of GDP. Last year we got it down to about 18.4 percent of GDP. Increased predicted spending for this year is now starting to go up again at 19.9 percent of what we produce in this country. So the question is how much do we borrow that requires interest and leaves an obligation for future generations? How much do we tax that takes away from workers. We have got a government, we have a Constitution, we have a free enterprise system that motivates. Those that work hard, that try, that learn, that save, that invest, end up better than those that do not. And what we have been tending to do for the last 40 years is increase taxes for those who succeed and redistribute wealth. So we tax at a higher rate everybody that is willing to take a second job or earn and save and invest, and, we now tax them when they die. How much do we tax before we start to take away that incentive to save, to work harder, to invest? We are having a problem now encouraging small business to take the risk because of high taxes to pay for big government. I would encourage my colleagues to look at my joint resolution, which is H.J. Res. 99, that provides we keep budget spending a constant percent of GDP, and let the budget increase as the GDP, gross domestic product, increases. There has to be some limitation. We have proposals for a balanced budget. That is fine and good, but if we decide simply to increase taxes or increase borrowing to accommodate a growing budget, it still leaves a burden on future generations, and it takes away some of that incentive from current workers that are trying to work and save and learn and invest to make their life and their families' lives better. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the overzealousness to spend is what happens in these Chambers, because often Members are better off politically if they come up with new pork barrel projects to take home to their district. They often get in the newspaper and on television if they are willing to start a new social program that spends more of somebody else's money. It is just important that we remember that when we spend money, when we come up with these generous programs, as we approach prescription drugs in Medicare, let us remember that we are taking away from current workers or putting an extra burden on future retirees by increasing the debt load to accommodate what seems at the moment an important spending program. Taxes and debt are high enough. Let us be frugal on spending.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I think the question is, when are taxes too high? We have a system in the United States that has made us successful, I think, based on the fact that those that work hard, that save, that learn, that try, that invest, end up better off than those that do not. So when, at what point, are taxes so high that it loses some of the free enterprise motivation that has made us so successful in this country? We are now faced with a dilemma. How can any free nation survive when a majority of its citizens now dependent on government services for so much no longer have the incentive to restrain the growth in government and the growth in taxes? Today the majority of Americans can vote themselves more generous government benefits at little or no cost to themselves, and, as a result, they have little incentive to restrain the growth in taxes. So I think the question one has to ask is, somehow we have to somehow, someplace, come to grips with, at what point do we lose that motivation that has made us great in the first place, and, with our redistribution of wealth, discourage the kind of effort of so many people that are trying to work a little harder and learn a little more and save a little more and invest a little more? Listen to this: 50 percent of Americans now pay less than 4 percent of the total individual income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay most of the individual income taxes. At the same time, the folks who are paying the least for government are receiving the most benefits. Americans who receive nearly half of the Federal benefits pay only 1 percent of the income taxes. Many of those beneficiaries are poor, but an increasing amount are middle class and wealthier citizens. So what is the restraint, when most of the population is going to benefit from higher taxes? It seems to me part of that restraint that we should consider to keep the motivation that has made us great in the first place is having a supermajority to increase taxes. The gentleman from Texas earlier said, let us have a supermajority for increasing the debt limit. I agree on that, too. Let us not hoodwink the American people with increasing the debt so that we can spend more money. It is not the tax cut that has resulted in this deficit spending. Let me give you one example. In 1998, we said we promised a balanced budget in 2002 based on a prediction of revenues that have ended up this year, even with the tax cut, $120 billion more than we projected in 1998. So our revenues are higher than we projected. We are still in deficit spending, and that is because we have dramatically increased spending, even over and above what the war on terrorism has cost us. Let me just conclude by saying our founders created a system where taxes are the price for government benefits and services. The idea is that voters would restrain the growth and expansion of government because of the personal costs to themselves in taxes. If we are going to keep the motivation that made our system great in this free enterprise system, then there has to be a supper-effort on the part of this Congress and presidents of the United States to restrain the growth in borrowing and restrain the growth in taxes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that it would be nice just to include myself in the good remarks made by both sides of the aisle on the importance of basic research. One area that we have not talked about that I think is so important in NSF is it keeps young, quality minds at that university staying in research, so it encourages the talented young people in our university systems to stay on, to get their Master's degrees and their Doctor's degree. Just in terms of sort of proving that point, if we are looking at all the Nobel Laureates in physics, in chemistry, and in economics, most every one of those individuals at one time in their career had an NSF grant. So part of the tremendous success of the program is keeping these talented young people in that research arena to do what is necessary to strengthen our economy, to improve our public health, and certainly to add to our ability to defend ourselves and our national security. America's position as a world leader in science and education is a key element to our national security. Let me just mention in the report on national security in the 21st century, the Hart-Rudman Commission noted that and, I will quote, ``The inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine.'' It is important that we move ahead, that we improve our education system, that we work more diligently than we ever have before, keeping more students in the math and sciences as they move their careers through high school and into the college arena. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize by saying that I believe we have put together a strong piece of legislation that will allow Congress to demonstrate its commitment to continuing the economic gains and technological advances of recent years through support of fundamental basic research. The increase in this legislation is a sound investment and is brought by bipartisan support, was passed through both the Subcommittee on Research and the full Committee on Science by a unanimous vote. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the bill. I would like to point out that NSF-funded research has also directly benefited America's effort in response to the events of 9/11-- supporting emergency grants pioneering the use of genomics as a tool in forensic analysis of microbes after last October's anthrax attacks. Also, an NSF-funded robotics grant led to the development of software- guided robots that were used successfully to search the rubble and locate victims at the World Trade Center Disaster site. NSF research has also led to faster computer Magnetic Resonance Imaging the Internet, Doppler radar, discoveries of new planets, new polymers materials that are used in products ranging from clothing to automobiles, and most recently, fundamental plant genomics research that will lead to improved crop varieties that increase yields while better protecting the environment. These are just a few examples, but the list goes on and on. I want to reiterate that NSF has supported these achievements with an efficiency that is almost unheard of in the Federal Government. NSF has been recognized for it's strong management--as the only cabinet agency to receive a ``green light'' rating in the President's budget. Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has hailed NSF as ``one of the true centers of excellence in government.'' Let me summarize by saying that I believe we have put together a strong piece of legislation that will allow Congress to demonstrate its commitment to continuing the economic gains and technological advancements of recent years through support of fundamental basic research. The increase in this legislation is a sound investment and has broad bipartisan support, was passed through both the Research Subcommittee and the full Science Committee by voice vote, and I urge all members to support the bill. NSF has supported the research of more than half of the United States Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and economics. Since 1989, 80% of NSF-funded Nobel prize winners were funded by NSF before winning the prize. Research supported by the National Science Foundation has led to a myriad of discoveries, technologies, and products that improve our daily lives, including: a greater understanding of bacteria, viruses, and the structure of DNA; medical diagnostic tools, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI); the Internet, web browsers, and fiber optics, which have revolutionized global communication; automated DNA sequencing machines; polymer materials used in products ranging from clothing to automobiles; Doppler radar used for accurate weather forecasting; artificial skin that can help recovering burn victims; economic research in game and decision theory which has led to a greater understanding of economic cycles; and discoveries of new planets, black holes, and insights into the nature of the universe. More recently, NSF-funded research has benefited America's effort in response to the events of 9/11. An NSF-funded grant led to the development of software-guided robots that were used successfully to search the rubble and locate victims at the World Trade Center disaster site. Also, NSF supported emergency grants pioneering the use of genomics as a tool in forensic analysis of microbes after last October's anthrax attacks. These advances have all come from an agency that receives only 4% of the total annual Federal spending for R&D. NSF has also been the lead Federal agency in a number of national science initiatives, such as those in information technology, plant genomics, and nanotechnology. The National Science Foundation's innovative education programs work to ensure that every American student receives a solid foundation in science and math through support for the training and education of teachers, the public, and students of all ages and backgrounds, and by supporting research into new teaching tools, curricula, and methodologies.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of reactions, one supporting this concept. I am informed that the language of the gentlewoman's amendment limits the amount that can be spent on this effort, and who is to say it should be more, and I just suggest rather than let politicians deciding, let us let the scientific community make that decision, not limit it or pre-guess what is the right amount. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we must reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment from my very good friend from California. I certainly agree with the gentlewoman that the National Science Foundation should conduct basic research that will enable us to understand better the impacts of biotechnology and other biological research on organisms and on the environment. In fact, NSF already conducts such research. Indeed, this House passed a bill just a few weeks ago that charged NSF, again, with conducting such research. That bill introduced by myself and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), had been approved by the Committee on Science. So I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that NSF should fund this kind of research and they will. My problems with the amendment are narrower, but still significant. First the numbers in the amendment are entirely arbitrary. They may be too large; they may be too small. We have no idea. We have never looked into it. In an area this important, I do not think we should be pulling numbers out of thin air. Second, NSF funds a lot of different scientific disciplines and subdisciplines. We chose not to pick out many of these specific areas in this bill for congressionally or politically targeted spending levels because once we go down that road, there is no end to it. We want to give the foundation, the scientific community the maximum flexibility that has served us so well. So generally we have limited ourselves to initiatives proposed by the President in areas on which the House has previously acted. The kind of research that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is highlighting is important, but not necessarily more important than areas of research we are not citing by name in this bill. We need to limit the number of areas of science that we single out for set-asides in this bill. Let me say in conclusion, and maybe thirdly, I have a process problem with this amendment. We have worked on this bill in a bipartisan manner for almost 2 years. The bill passed unanimously in committee because of lengthy bipartisan discussions. I am not eager to add new issues on the House floor. We are poised now to pass a bill that can move swiftly through both the House and the other body, and I think many of us do not want to add anything that has even the potential to slow our progress. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is unnecessary and could slow passage of an important measure, and I will work with the gentlewoman to ensure that the area of science she is seeking to protect continues to receive its due from the National Science Foundation.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for those gracious remarks. Mr. Chairman, I feel privileged to be allowed to be the sponsor of this legislation, H.R. 4664. But, as we all know, we have a fantastic scientific community out there, and NSF is one of the lead agencies that has done such a tremendous job. In our committee, it has been a bipartisan support, right from the get-go, with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Research. The last time this agency was authorized was in 1998 as part of a 3- year bill that expired at the end of fiscal year 2000. That is why I think it is so important that we move ahead with this legislation today, to make sure that the House has the kind of oversight of all agencies of government, as it is destined to do. Let me just say that it is so clear from every evaluation and every economic analysis that the Federal investment in science and technology is about as good an investment as you can possibly make with the Americans' taxpayer money to make sure that we have the basic research for national security. Smart bombs and smart weapons and the technological ability of our economic security come from this kind of basic research. It is also important for our economy, and we have been credited by Mr. Greenspan and many others that our economic strength is derived from the basic research that we have worked on over the last 50 years, and certainly not the least is the strength of the health in the United States. I would like to give one quote that is very interesting, and that is from Harold Varmus, the former director of NIH. He said, ``Congress is not addressing with significant vigor the compelling needs for adequately funding the National Science Foundation, which is the basis of a lot of the research and a lot of the tools they are using at NIH.'' This bill is the product of 2 years of hearings and examinations of NSF activities by the Committee on Science and our Subcommittee on Research; and during this time the committee received input from prominent scientists, economists, government officials and from other experts with an interest in improving federally funded basic research. In the end, we arrived at three principal conclusions. One, NSF is a model government agency with an exemplary record of supporting basic research within a peer-reviewed, competitive grant process that funds only the best cutting-edge research, and does so using under 5 percent of the total budget in overhead costs. Second, as a relatively small Federal agency responsible for just 4 percent of the total Federal research development expenditures, NSF- funded research has led to a myriad of discoveries that have improved, as I mentioned, public health, strengthened our economy, and enhanced our lives and well-being in many ways we could not have imagined 30 years ago. Three, a number of areas within NSF programs require additional funding to assure continued advancements in the Nation's scientific enterprise. Among them are funding new education initiatives, alleviating grant pressure within a system that cannot fund over 30 percent of highly rated research proposals. Again, of all of these highly rated research proposals, we only end up being able to fund 30 percent of the excellent ideas that are coming in from all of the universities and research facilities. It is for these reasons that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), I and every member of the Committee on Science called for significant increases in support for NSF in this legislation. I say this as a true fiscal conservative that strongly supports the President's efforts to keep nondefense discretionary spending in check so we can fully focus our budget on the Federal Government's number one priority of defending our Nation, and basic research is part of that responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. More and more of our students are adult and are part-time. It is a good amendment, and we accept the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) might also be relating to this, but in the bioterrorism bill that we passed a couple of weeks ago, we did include over $190 million to USDA, additional funding to the Department of Energy, specifically for this purpose. So that bioterrorism bill included a lot of the goals that I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest we need.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to make it clear, it is somewhat of a different amendment than the gentlewoman submitted in the Committee on Science, but even more and above that, it seems to me like we should agree that if we can leave NSF and the scientific community and the peer review process to do and decide on these initiatives and how much is reasonable, the legislation that we passed recently by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and myself does not say we are going in one area or the other. It says do more research. Let us leave that up to the scientific community in deciding how much money should be spent in any particular area of this biological research.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this legislation is named the Investing in America's Future Act because that is really what it is. Basic research is what is needed to develop new ideas for products that the world demands. It is how we develop ways to increase the efficiency and productivity in the way we produce those certain products. Basic research, which NSF has done such a tremendous job in its peer review, is really key to not only our economic security but our national security. Smart weapon technology come from basic research. Let me for just a moment quote a previous statement from NIH, the National Institutes of Health. They said if you do not do more research, basic research coming from NSF, we are going to have to set up our own division for basic research in NIH. Adequate basic research is key to our health, key to our economy, key to our national security.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just say little evidence exists that the Ex-Im Bank's credit assistance creates jobs. The Ex-Im Bank is a prime example of corporate welfare. The majority of the Ex-Im subsidies go to Fortune 500 companies. It is time to derail this kind of effort that selects favorites and distorts free trade. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of corporate welfare. As we eliminate the fat from the federal budget, we should recommit ourselves to making sure all projects and programs are closely examined--not just the politically easy ones. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) subsidizes loans and loan guarantees to American exporters. The experts agree; Eximbank should be abolished. The Congressional Budget Office makes the following observation: Eximbank has lost $8 billion on its operations, practically all in the last 15 years; and little evidence exists that the Eximbank's credit assistance creates jobs. The Congressional Research Service writes that: Most economists doubt that a nation can improve its welfare over the long run by subsidizing exports; and at the national level, subsidized export financing merely shifts production among sectors within the economy, rather than adding to the overall level of economic activity; export financing subsidizes foreign consumption at the expense of the domestic economy; and subsidizing financing will not raise permanently the level of employment in the economy. The Heritage Foundation recommends Congress ``close down the Export-Import Bank.'' Heritage further states: Subsidized exports promote the business interest of certain American businesses at the expense of other Americans; and little evidence exists to demonstrate that subsidized export promotion creates jobs--at least net of the jobs lost due to taxpayer financing and the diversion of U.S. resources into government- favored export activities at the expense of non-subsidized businesses. According to Heritage, phasing out subsidies will save 2.3 billion over 5 years. The former Director of Regulatory studies at the Cato Institute calls the subsidy activity of Eximbank ``corporate pork.'' He stated, ``Even in the face of unfair international competition, the U.S. government doesn't have a right to use tax dollars to match equally stupid subsidies.'' Export financed by Eximbank actually hurt competitive U.S. exporters not selected for subsidies. The bank chooses winners and losers in the economy. The winners are selected foreign consumers and selected U.S. corporations. The Eximbank is a prime example of corporate welfare. The majority of Eximbank subsidies go to Fortune 500 companies that could easily afford financing from commercial banks: Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Westinghouse Electric, General Electric, and AT&T. To raise funds for its lending and guarantee programs, Eximbank puts additional pressure on Treasury borrowing, driving up interest rates for private borrowers. That's all of us. From a corner barbershop wanting to expand to a young family trying to finance their first home. We all pay the price. Sadly, there's more. Eximbank appears to have wasted money on frivolous items as well. After 50 years with the same agency logo, Eximbank decided it needed a new one. Designing a new logo--including creation, copyright search, and the redesign of bank brochures and literature--cost nearly $100,000 last year. And in 1993, Eximbank spent $30,000 to train 20 employees how to speak in public--including chairman Kenneth Brody. An outside consultant was paid $3,000 a day for this task. Mr. Speaker, I believe government shouldn't choose winners in the economy. With Eximbank the big winners are foreign consumers, large corporations and professional speech coaches. The loosers are the American taxpayers.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me offer an analogy, a Biblical quotation, and I paraphrase: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach that person to fish, and he will have food for a lifetime. This is the kind of venture that has not only worked well in other countries, but has worked well in Michigan, in Illinois and many other States. I only wish we would expand this kind of program, that takes an individual that has the willingness to venture into enterpraneurship and the hard work that is required in any capitalistic movement, and give funding to that individual so that they can develop a business that is not only going to help them, but going to help their community. Again, to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the colleagues on the other side of the aisle that helped with this legislation, this is probably a more efficient way to help more people in more countries than a lot of the foreign aid that we have pursued in prior years. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4073.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to me. In support of this bill, I would like to relay to my colleagues my personal experience with the National Transportation Safety Board. Last week, there was a train wreck in Potterville, Michigan, in my congressional district. Thirty-five of the 58 cars of the Canadian National Train going through Potterville were derailed; and, of course, the question that is asked of legislators is why did it happen and what are the health and safety issues. So I called the National Transportation Safety Board. It was interesting, all of the information they had. They knew that the track was manufactured in 1976, that it was laid in 1977, that certain portions of the track were welded at the factory, and how much welding was on site. They were extremely helpful investigating and analyzing and sharing some of the information that was available in that Potterville train wreck. I think we are all somewhat concerned with the additional visibility of train wrecks that we have seen in Florida, in California, in Detroit, and last week in Potterville, Michigan. It was an extremely nervous situation in Potterville because of the 35 derailed cars. There were nine tankers of propane and two tankers of sulphuric acid. So it was an immediate concern to the community; 2,200 individuals were evicted from their homes, all wondering about safety, why it happened and if it might happen again. I just would like to commend the NTSB and the Federal Railroad Administration, the community, our first responders and Rick Jones, the county sheriff, for all having the kind of cooperation that minimized risk and now has totally eliminated any danger or any health problems; I also commend Canadian National, who was very, very quick to be on the spot to minimize any health hazards, and agreeing to pay for damages caused by that railroad accident. I would summarize in saying that probably the National Transportation Safety Board might even need more support as we prepare for the future challenges of rail safety.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to recognize one of my constituents and a friend, Burdette Andrews, of Jackson, MI, who is retiring as superintendent of Vandercook Lake schools where he served for 56 years. Mr. Andrews is recognized as the longest serving superintendent of schools in the history of our nation. Burdette is well known for having served the people of the school district and the state of Michigan with a dedication unparalleled by any before him. It is nearly impossible for me to stand before you and do such an inspiring man justice with mere words, however, when I think of this man who played such an important part in the education of so many young people and future leaders, I am moved to try. I think of words such as resilience, honor, dedication, and intensity, warmth, friendliness, and kindness. None of these words, however, are quite enough. One thing I can be sure of though, is that in that part of Michigan's seventh district, Burdette Andrews is a legend. Fellow representatives, by serving his school district for 56 years, Mr. Andrews has not only set national record for length of service in this profession, but also has brought great honor and distinction to that profession he loved so much. Burdette Andrews is credited with being responsible for the popular feeling among people in his community toward the public school system. Burdette married Annabel Shafer in 1940. They had four children. Don Edwin Andrews, deceased in 1992, was an accountant and auditor for DOT in Detroit, Dan L. Andrews, partner and member of the operating committee for Roney and Co., a stock brokerage firm Jonathan B. Andrews, high school counselor at Chelsea High School and a private psychotherapist, Judith A. Andrews, controller at ShoTech Presentations in Madison Hgts. Burdette was born in 1908 and graduated from Greenville College in Illinois in 1930. He then went on to earn a master's degree in administration from the University of Michigan. Before starting his career as the superintendent of schools of Vandercook Lake in the Summer of 46. Every millage election through the years since 1946 for new school buildings and/or additions and additional millage for operation was always approved by a the people of Vandercook Lake. One reason was that Burdette Andrews was always conservative with the taxpayer's money. Academically, Vandercook Lake Public Schools have maintained accreditation continuously with the University of Michigan and the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Curriculum has been expanded at both the elementary and secondary levels. Special programs have been added to benefit all children. An excellent staff of administrators and teachers has been maintained. The expansion and enrichment of the athletic and activities program for students, including a high school band program, have taken place. All these things were accomplished with Mr. Andrews' guidance. He has served this community well. Burdette Andrews not only embodies all of the characteristics and qualities that we as legislators desire for all those in public service. By allowing children access to him and the qualities and characteristics he embodies for his 92 years, Burdette Andrews has done a great service to America's youth and, therefore, Burdette Andrews has done a great service to America.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that the gentleman from California says that I agree with. We came here in the same year, in 1993. I have been working to try to hold down the increase in spending and thereby hold down the increase in the public debt. I hope that we can have a real debate on just how much debt do we want to leave our kids and our grandkids. It is a mortgage, after all. I feel, like I am sure many of us, just like any family or any business, if you are going to go deeper into debt and borrow money, there should be some plan to start paying off that debt in the future, not just let it perpetually grow and grow and grow. Of course, that is what happened in the last 40 years in this Congress. Republicans came in and took the majority in 1995, and we came in with vim and vigor and tried to put pressure on the increase in spending. I have heard some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle suggest that it is the tax cut that is causing the deficit. Maybe that is true, if you say, look, we have no control over spending and we are just going to increase spending 2 and 3 and 4 times the rate of inflation. But if we are doing what we should and having spending increases more consistent with inflation in this country, then there would not be any problem of digging into the Social Security trust fund or any of the other trust funds. Let me say that our current deficit is the result of an explosion of spending. Let me give you this example. In 1998, we passed and executed a plan designed to balance the budget in fiscal year 2002. That budget projected a fiscal year 2002 revenue of just under $1.89 trillion. Actual revenues for this year are going to be slightly over. The CBO now projects $2 trillion, or more than 5 percent above the projection. So revenues, even with the tax cuts, are coming in much stronger than we even anticipated for a balanced budget. Even if you subtract out the cost of the war on terror and the increased money for defense and this supplemental today, we would still have a balanced budget, if it were not for the outrageous increase in spending that this Congress, the House and the Senate, and the President have passed over the last few years. The growth in discretionary spending over that period has been explosive. Discretionary outlays will rise at an annual average rate of 7.4 percent between 1998 and 2003. The President's proposal for $789 billion in discretionary spending in 2003 is a full $124 billion, or 18 percent, more than the President Clinton projected for this year in his last budget. The point is, it is spending. It is not tax cuts, it is not digging into Social Security, but it is the tremendous growth in spending that is our problem. The $35 billion in increased defense expenditures and $6 billion in expanded homeland defense for fiscal year 2003 are not even half of the total increase since President Clinton left office. Yet we heard complaints that even these gigantic increases are not enough. We need to get serious about controlling spending and deciding how much debt we want to leave to our children and grandchildren. I am proposing debt ceiling legislation that would do a better job of assessing the government's true liabilities. It would include the debt held by the public and the debt held by government trust funds, as does the current limit, but it would add to that all of the unfunded government liabilities coming due within 10 years. This is going to give us a better position in deciding just how much debt we want to leave to our kids and grandkids. But I say let us not demagogue the tax cuts, let us not demagogue the issue on Social Security and Medicare. Let us face the real problem, and that is the significant increase in spending. So I would hope I am not hearing from the other side of the aisle as we go through the appropriation process criticizing that there is not enough money for this issue or that issue or this program or that program. This is war. Those programs should have minimal increases or no increases, if we are going to win this war on terror and control spending.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?