Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank all Members who worked on this, but certainly commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for having the foresight and commitment to initiate and advance this legislation that I would suggest is very important. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, I am proud to have worked on this bill and to be a prime sponsor. This act establishes programs at both the National Science Foundation and NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, to advance research and, perhaps most importantly, develop a talented workforce of cyber security researchers and professionals. While the focus in information technology has largely been to build it faster, build it smaller, and build it less expensive, perhaps now more than ever we need to know how to build it safer and more secure. The programs authorized by this act provide much needed support for the research that will help us understand just how to do that. By supporting undergraduate and graduate post-doctoral students, as well as senior researchers who wish to focus some of their research efforts on cyber security, we will train the experts who make sure the appropriate safeguards are in place to protect us from malicious cyber attacks. It is a huge challenge. It is not going to come cheaply and it is not going to come easily. There are some unique features of this bill that will make it particularly effective in fostering innovative research and education in cyber security. For example, this act will establish a program at the National Science Foundation to help institutions of higher education purchase the equipment that they need so that students can learn how to prevent cyber attacks without risking the integrity of the college's own computer network. Another program established by this act at the National Institute of Standards and Technology will support the kind of high-risk, high-payoff research that is necessary to make great advances in cyber security but that is unlikely to get funded under the traditional peer-review process that tends to favor more conservative approaches to research questions. In addition, in recognition of the fact that effective cyber security will rely largely on the expertise of computer technicians, this bill amends the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 to provide the National Science Foundation funding to 2-year colleges to make sure that graduates of technical programs are properly trained in cyber security. Just a few weeks ago, an electronic attack crippled 13 computer servers that manage Internet traffic. While this hour-long attack went nearly unnoticed by routine computer users, a longer attack could cripple communication, infrastructure operations and even national security efforts. This country more than any other country in the world has come to depend on our software and our computer technology, from how we run our financial services to how we move our railroads to certainly our airlines and transportation down to how we transfer electrical power throughout the United States, not to mention our national security and our military efforts. We cannot allow these kinds of attacks to happen. In conclusion, as we move forward in our war against terrorism, it is going to be as important for us to secure cyber space as it will be for us to secure homeland security against malicious attack. I look forward to working with the National Science Foundation as they implement the programs authorized by this act.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, after about 20 meetings and briefings over the last couple of months, last Thursday the Committee on International Relations reported out this resolution, H.J. Res. 114, which would authorize the President to use force in Iraq, if necessary. Before this came up in the Committee on International Relations, I met with CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice at the White House last Wednesday to get answers to some of my remaining questions. They related classified information about Saddam Hussein's buildup of chemical and biological and radiological and nuclear weapons, as well as the buildup of technology and equipment to deliver those weapons. This information is very alarming. I suggested to the White House that they try to work at declassifying more of this information and make it available to the American people so that there would be a better understanding of the real threat that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is posing against the United States. As an old Air Force intelligence officer, let me suggest that it is my conclusion that Saddam Hussein represents the same terror that we experienced on September 11, a year ago. We know that he has a buildup of these weapons of mass destruction. We know that he has shown a willingness to use these weapons against his own people up north in the Kurdish area. We know that he is a bully that wants power, we know he is bloodthirsty, we know that he tried to take Kuwait to expand his power and influence as far as expanding his ability to export his products. I offered an amendment in the Committee on International Relations to emphasize one important point, that was, that our quarrel was not with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people had little to do with any of the decisions leading us into this conflict. The aggression and buildup of weapons has happened because the Iraqi Government was seized by Saddam Hussein, who has used Iraq's resources and the Iraqi people for his own delusional purposes. In fact, I believe the people of Iraq will be our allies against Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Afghan people were our allies against the Taliban. In conclusion, let me recall what we were talking about a year ago after the September 11 attack. There were accusations of who knew what when and what could have been done to prevent that kind of attack. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is what we can do: we can take a stand. We can inform ourselves of the seriousness of the information that is now available to us to know that this is a real threat. We can have strong support in this Congress so that the United Nations Security Council is going to pass a strong resolution there with ramifications for enforcement. That is what we can do for this country, and that is what we can do for the free world.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to recognize the Tibbits Opera House, in Coldwater, MI, which celebrated its 120th anniversary on September 21, 2002. Having opened in 1882, the Tibbits is one of Michigan's oldest theaters. Built for a cost of $25,000, the Tibbits was one of the finest opera houses of its day. Through the years, the Tibbits has provided the residents of Michigan's seventh district with a wide range of entertainment offerings: hosting operas, plays, wrestling matches, silent pictures and movies. Famous acts like John Phillip Sousa and his band, Guy Lombardo, the Glen Miller Orchestra and Buffalo Bill and his Cowboys all performed on its stage. Fellow Representatives, I am happy to report that after all this time, the Tibbits is still going strong, thanks to the Tibbits Opera House Foundation and Arts Council, which purchased the theater in 1963. Every year, thousands of people flock to the Tibbits to see plays like Camelot, The Last Night of Ballyhoo, A Connecticut Yankee, and A Grand Night for Singing. In addition, the Tibbits offers programs for children, professional touring musicians, and art exhibitions, and also plays host to a variety of community activities. The Tibbits is a community landmark and an important piece of our country's rich theatrical heritage. It is a testament to the residents of Coldwater that it has been preserved for 120 years, and continues to thrive.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of the bill of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and the effort of this Congress to be more aggressive in support of our firefighters, I very much encourage the consideration and ultimate passage of legislation that will accomplish that. This morning we held a hearing in the Committee on Science to examine just how the Federal Government can help ensure that our Nation's fire departments are adequately equipped and staffed to perform the jobs they have been asked to do. The hearing shed light on the challenges facing our fire departments. I would like to talk about a couple of those challenges. First, the need of the firefighting community to work together on these efforts. Our challenge and our goal is to increase support for firefighters in this country. After 9/11 of last year, I think all of America recognized that we depend a great deal on our first responders. The firefighters in New York set an example for people all over the world that it takes cooperation if we are going to protect the liberty and freedom that we have. One concern I have is the contest that has been developing between volunteers and full-time firefighters. I think we need to do everything we can so all of our first responders, firefighters and medics work together to accomplish the goals that we need to accomplish at the Federal level. In my home State of Michigan, the Professional Firefighters Union has been pressuring their members not to volunteer in their home communities because they might displace potential union members. The events of September 11 generated a renewed appreciation and respect for firefighters. Two years ago, Members of the House started a program of helping fire departments around the country with equipment and with training. I think we should remind ourselves that many of these first responders are in small communities that cannot depend on a fire department that is 100 miles away. The only way a lot of these communities can survive is to have volunteers that can work in those departments. Where else do we have volunteers that are willing to go out and risk their lives to protect our property and our lives? The grant program that we established provided direct support to fire departments around the country for basic firefighting needs. In its initial year, the program proved to be very popular with both fire services and Members of Congress. Additionally, the U.S. Fire Administration received extensive praise for an exceptional job of developing and implementing the program efficiently under challenging time constraints. In my mind, the need-based peer-reviewed grant program is an excellent example of how the Federal Government can assist the first responders, both paid full-time people and volunteers, with the basic training and equipment they need to answer our calls. If we lose volunteers in those very small communities, it will be a tremendous financial burden to maintain the kind of protection that we have now. This has got to be a situation where we work together. Those of us in the Fire Caucus, while supportive of a grant program to increase terrorism preparedness, quickly recognized that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program was intended to provide fundamental firefighting support to departments, and should be kept separate and distinct from the FEMA counterterrorism funds that the President proposed. Further complicating this problem has been language in the proposed Homeland Security legislation that gives the FEMA Administrator and the Secretary of the new department authority to shift funds among programs. There is a real concern now that this authority, while understandable for administrative flexibility, could eliminate the basic program that several of us thought was very important that we implement in this country. In conclusion, let me say that firefighters around this country are there when there is a community project. In many places they hold baked good sales to make sure that they can buy the equipment to protect us in those local communities. We need local support for these firefighters, we need more State support for these firefighters, and we need more Federal support for these firefighters. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the United States Fire Administration that my science research subcommittee oversees for their hard work and commitment in bringing the goals of this program to fruition. Administrator David Paulison and grants director Bryan Cowan have gone above and beyond the call of duty.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). I will, Madam Speaker, close by saying this is a very partial tribute by the effort of every community, and certainly Congress should exert to help our firefighters throughout this country. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) said, can you imagine between 70 and 85 percent, depending on the State, of these first responders, firefighters are volunteers? In the urban areas, that full- time firefighter is crucial; but in the remote villages in the rural townships, they depend on the volunteers to make sure that we have the kind of fire protection and the first responder protection that is necessary to save lives and protect property. Tomorrow in our Committee on Science we will be taking up my bill, H.R. 4548, that continues the firefighter grant program and the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Boehlert) bill on legislation additionally assisting firefighters throughout the country with H.R. 3992. With that, I invite my colleagues again to attend this Sunday's ceremony.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the author of this important resolution but also a firefighter himself, the motivator for the assistance of the Firefighter Grant Program that we started a couple years ago. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been very instrumental because of many of his constituents that were involved in September 11 of 2001.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this important resolution that I cosponsored with my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), provides us with an opportunity to honor the commitment and bravery of those firefighters who gave their lives while in the line of duty during the year 2001. It also recognizes the important mission and contributions of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. In 1992, Congress created the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation to lead a nationwide effort to remember our fallen heroes of these first responders. The Foundation has successfully met this challenge, providing a variety of supporting activities to surviving family members, including emotional support, awards, scholarships for surviving spouses and children, and the establishment of the national park in Emmitsburg, Maryland, to memorialize the fallen firefighters. Madam Speaker, this Sunday the Foundation will honor 446 firefighters that lost their lives in the line of duty at an annual ceremony usually held in Emmitsburg, but this year held here in Washington. The Foundation is expecting over 20,000 people to attend this year's memorial weekend, a record number. Many of these people will be spouses and children of the 343 firefighters that perished September 11. On that warm September morning in 2001, the firefighters of the New York City Fire Department reported to work as they did every day, ready to respond to whatever emergency situation might occur. But that morning was different. The 110-story World Trade Centers that were both literally and symbolically the center of world commerce were hit by two hijacked 747s. The firefighters of the New York Fire Department received the most terrifying and overwhelming emergency call that this Nation has ever known. Still, they responded with true bravery, rushing into that burning building without hesitation. They helped evacuate 25,000 people, 25,000, the largest evacuation in the history of the world, and certainly they struggled until the last possible moments to free those who were trapped. Three hundred forty-three of them lost their lives in doing so. It was on that September day that the American firefighter, I think, became the symbol of American freedom and American bravery to not only those of us in the United States, but certainly to millions around the world. In addition to the heroism displayed on 9-11, we know that first responders all over the country display similar heroism every day, not just when major disaster strikes, but every day, as full-time and volunteers often risk their lives to protect the lives and property of people around the country. Fire and emergency service personnel respond to over 16 million calls annually. In addition to the 343 heroes that gave their lives in New York City on 9-11, last year we lost another 99 firefighters, volunteers and full-time, working in the line of duty to save property and lives. I think we all agree that it is our job as Americans and as Members of Congress to never forget the sacrifices of those who protect us, and I commend the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation for its exceptional efforts in leading this charge. I offer my strongest support to this resolution, and certainly invite my colleagues to attend this Sunday's tribute. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 476) expressing support for the goals and ideas of a day of tribute to all firefighters who have died in the line of duty and recognizing the important mission of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation in assisting family members to overcome the loss of their fallen heroes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H. Con. Res. 476.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my compliments to my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), on moving this ahead. My colleagues talk very calmly about what can be a useful tool in so many areas. From my experiences in agriculture, I have learned that we now have the remote sensing capability that we are really not using to predict insect infestation, to predict how the yields are going to accommodate the demand for food in this world. So with useful information of satellites and assisted land set help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and our university of systems, so many things that we can do to make sure that we can plan ahead for such things as drought or insects or low production in certain parts of the world so we can accommodate increased production in other areas. So I commend my colleagues for moving this bill ahead; I hope we will pass and, more than that, I hope we will eventually have the kind of funding so that we can maximize the use of these tools and techniques.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a national insurance crisis is ravaging the nation's essential health care system Medical professional liability insurance rates have skyrocketed, causing major insurers to drop coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels. Doctors and other health care providers have been forced to abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as emergency medicine, neurology, and obstetrics and gynecology. Low- income neighborhoods and rural areas are being particularly hard hit. H.R. 4600 is, modeled after California's quarter-century old and highly successful health care litigation reforms (MICRA). MICRA was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, and has proved immensely successful in increasing access to affordable medical care. Overall, according to data of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the rate of increase in medical professional liability premiums in California since MICRA was enacted in 1976 has been a very modest 167 percent, whereas the rest of the United States have experienced a 505 percent rate of increase. Economists have concluded that direct medical care litigation reforms--including caps on non-economic damage awards--generally reduce the growth of malpractice claims rates and insurance premiums, and reduce other stresses on doctors that may impair the quality of medical care. By incorporating MICRA's time-tested reforms at the Federal level, the HEALTH Act will make medical malpractice insurance affordable again, encourage health care practitioners to maintain their practices, and reduce health care costs for patients. MICRA remains the only proven legislative solution to the current crisis, yet many state courts in states other than California have nullified legislative reforms. Congressional action is required. The current, unregulated medical tort system can force doctors to practice defensive medicine. It also discourages improvements in the delivery of medical care by deterring doctors from freely discussing errors or potential errors due to a fear of litigation. The HEALTH Act will also save billions of dollars a year in taxpayer dollars by significantly reducing the incidence of wasteful defensive medicine in federally- funded programs.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, what it was, probably, is a gimmick and it was. It was Democrats and Republicans. Vice-President Gore in some of his speeches said the lockbox is great, but Republicans did the same thing. The lockbox was a gimmick to make people believe that somehow we were making Social Security more secure is just not the case. The money was borrowed from Social Security. The money will be paid back, but the consequences of coming up with that money to pay back. My colleague mentioned $120 trillion; $120 trillion is the extra money that we are going to have to come up with over the next 75 years to meet Social Security benefits, what we have promised over and above what is coming in from the Social Security, or FICA, tax. If we put $9 trillion in an investment fund today, drawing 5 percent, then that $9 trillion that we put from that trust fund into an investment fund today would accommodate the $120 trillion over the next 75 years. The challenge is to reduce spending now, to hold the line on spending now so that we do not increase taxes, so we do not increase the debt. Maybe we should have a law that says we only can spend what we tax, and therefore, we would have to have a balanced budget. There have been several attempts to put a constitutional amendment in for a balanced budget. I think if we have to increase taxes and take away money out of the American workers' pockets, as Congress wanted, to spend more there would be more of a public outrage in understanding that big government and the expansion of government, as fast as it is growing, is coming at the sacrifice of money being taken away from families in America.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, winding this up, there are some real obligations of the Federal Government. It is the defense, it is the security, it is the health, it is education; but now we have expanded into so many social programs that in many ways take away the incentive of working hard and saving and investing and doing for themselves. We discourage investment. We say, look, if they earn some money and invest it in something and the value goes up, we are going to tax them again. It is interesting. Our system says to a person, look, after they have earned this money, if they go to Las Vegas and live it up with wine, women, song, gambling, and spend all that money in gambling and waste and expenditures, we are not going to tax them anything; but if they give some of that money to their kids and their grandkids to help in their education, to help in their success, help their development to contribute to this economy, we are going to tax the heck out of them. Our system of taxation needs to be reviewed, especially when we compare it to other countries, other countries that do not have a capital gains tax, other countries that encourage savings and investment more than we do. The challenge is before us, and it is not going to be an easy road. And I compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for his willingness to stand up against the easy road to say, look, we are going to be okay, we are going to pay everybody's benefits, we are going to come up with all these programs that do everything they want us to do. The fact is that sometimes it is very difficult to say, look, that should not be a Federal Government responsibility, that should be a State government responsibility, a local government responsibility, or an individual's responsibility. So it is hard choices in a situation where everybody is running for political office and the tendency is to try to please everybody.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said earlier, I encourage everybody to look at their payroll stub of how much is being taken out for Social Security, how much is being taken out for Medicare, how much is being taken out for local taxes, city taxes, how much is being taken out for the mammoth Federal tax bite that we reach into the American workers' pockets to accommodate expanded Federal Government. We have got some basic responsibilities. We are in a war and are going to pay for that war. There has been comments from the other side of the aisle that if we just had not had that tax cut, then maybe we would have had enough money to do all of the spending for the war on terrorism plus all of the increased spending that this body has been accustomed to. The fact is that the tax cut only represented 13 percent of the deficit problem this particular year, and according to most economists the positive effect on the economy of having tax reductions more than offset what we lost from simply projecting what the taxes might have been if there was no positive effect on the economy. The fact is, and Art Laffer said it very dramatically, tax cuts help stimulate the economy. So we cannot say we have got to have more government spending, more government services and someone over, with the other hand, saying Congress has got to deal with encouraging economic expansion and economic recovery.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. That is correct, $331 billion is the national debt; and now we have upped the military spending to about $360 billion.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. And especially in an emergency. If we have an emergency in our business or family, then we cover that emergency and cut down on spending. Right now we have an emergency in the Federal Government. When we have a war on our hands, a war on terror, a war to make sure that we have security in this country, if there is ever a time when it is reasonable to hold the line on other spending, to start prioritizing a little on where we spend the money, it is now. Let us spend the money. Let us make sure that, to the best of our ability, that we have the security. Let us beef up our military where we are comfortable with that level. But with the rest of the spending, let us not demand, like we have in past years, that we just continue to spend as if there is no emergency facing us, and that is what we are doing. What was just handed me, and I do not know if the gentleman can see it, it is the line that projects the increased debt up through 2012. We will see from the 1940s on the debt stayed relatively flat. Traditionally, even the so-called liberal Democrats did not want to increase the debt. In fact, we did not have a fixed debt limit. Every time they increased the debt up until 1983, they said that this was going to be temporary, and at some point it was going to revert back to the previous level of debt, because they did not want to permanently increase the obligation of their kids and their grandkids and great grandkids. But in 1983, they said, well, maybe we have to increase it permanently. Back in 1970, just 30 years ago, the debt of this country was $380 billion. So after the world wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Civil War, the War of 1812, the Great Depression, many financial hardships, 32 years later we have gone by what is prudent in the way we handle our personal affairs, and the way we handle our congressional affairs is to the point where we now pay $330 billion every year just on servicing that debt, just on the interest of that debt. So to hoodwink the American people and suggest that we are paying down the debt to the public when really we are borrowing more money, if you will, from another credit card as we borrow from the trust funds, maybe, I say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), it would be good to help everybody understand what these trust funds are.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the property taxes throughout the United States, the people have demanded that their property tax be lowered, and I think part of that is because every year they have to reach into their pockets and come up with the money to pay the property tax. So it has been shifted in Michigan, for example, to an increase in the sales tax. If we had a system where people had to reach into their pockets to pay their Federal income tax rather than having it deducted from their paycheck that they never see, the people would be outraged. Mr. Speaker, I call on every worker in America to look at the stub of their paycheck for their next paycheck and look at this 52 percent-odd in and out that is being deducted from the money they earn. So at what point do the American people rise up and say, look, enough is enough, Congress, get your act together? Let me just add to my colleague's comment in terms of the unfunded mandates that we put on States and that is trying to pass off and we say we want to do this good thing and then go home and brag about it but we make local jurisdictions pay the costs. We pass a bill that says you have got to do all these things, but you are going to pay for it. Added to that is the unfunded liabilities, what we owe from promises we have made on Social Security, on Medicare, on the retirement for public service; and let me just read these unfunded liabilities for the next 75 years: $15 trillion more money that we are going to have to come up with for Medicare, and that does not take into consideration expanding Medicare coverage for prescription drugs; $9 trillion we are going to have to come up with extra from someplace to pay Social Security benefits; $800 billion for the public service retirement system. If we change the system to say we are going to have a unified budget and what we owe the trust funds does not make any difference, then what we are going to see Members of Congress do, politicians do, is sort of increase the FICA tax a little bit, increase what the Army and Navy and civil service have deducted from their paychecks so there is more money coming in that is being used that will be spent by the Federal Government so the Federal Government can brag and say, look, we have a balanced budget. We only have a balanced budget if we consider the unfunded liabilities, if we consider the obligations that we have from the trust funds because that money going into the trust funds is going to help solve the long-term demographic problems in both Medicare and Social Security. Just a footnote here, that the money in the Social Security trust fund would cover Social Security benefits for about 2 years. So for somebody to suggest that if government would pay back that money, everything would be okay, it is going to take more than that. It is going to take some dramatic changes in Social Security to try to get a better return on that money than the 1.7 percent. It has got to be optional. We will probably take it up after the first of the year, but it is easy to demagogue on the campaign trail. So many campaigns are saying, well, my opposing candidate wants to ruin Social Security. So it is a scare tactic, and seniors that depend on this program sometimes do get nervous and do get scared. Some say deficits do not matter; that is not true. The spiralling debt will lead to eventual economic disaster. We need to deal with it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it was Adam Smith, who I consider another great economist, that in trying to figure out what was prudent, what was the right thing to do fiscally in government, said, what is prudent in one's own personal life is the prudent thing to do as far as running government. In our personal lives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and I are both sort of farmers, and the tradition in farming where we grew up was we tried to pay down the mortgage to give our kids a little better chance. We are doing just the opposite: We are adding more burden to our kids and grandkids, and jeopardizing their future because somehow we think our spending and our needs today must be greater than what their needs are going to be 20, 30, 40 years from now. That is ridiculous, it is not fair, and it is something that eventually the American people have to realize when they go to the ballot box this November or whatever November. Some of the questions they have to be asking their candidates are: How deep do you want to go in debt? How much taxes do you want to raise? How much are you going to increase government spending? So do not stand there and brag to me all of the things you are going to do for me with my money as it is filtered through the bureaucracy in Washington.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. As a matter of fact, almost 70 percent more American workers now pay more in the FICA tax than they do in the income tax. I mentioned earlier that we went to New York a few weeks ago to the Federal Hall where the Bill of Rights was developed and our first Congress met. Our Constitution gave the incentive that has made this country so great over the last 226 years. It was a system where those individuals that worked hard, that tried, that learned, that applied that learning, that saved and invested were better off than those that did not. So that kind of an incentive was what made this country great, and we have been redistributing income; so as our taxes have been more progressive and saying, well, if one is successful or if they are a young couple and they want to work another 8 hours to do better for their family, we have a system now that says we are not only going to continue to tax them at the same rate but if they go out with a second job and earn more, we are going to tax them at a higher rate. So like the 100 percent, the more we tax, the more it discourages that kind of saving, that kind of investment. It is a challenge that this country is going to have to face up to. And the demographics are startling. As we look at the demographics, as we look at more and more people, the so-called baby boomers going out of the working, production, paying-their-taxes mode and apply for Social Security and Medicare to the taking-out position, we are faced with dramatic challenges of the survival of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. So the result without some real responsibility in spending is going to increase taxes on everybody else. So when I go to high school classes, I tell them, look, they are the generation at risk. They should be yelling and screaming. They should be going to these political meetings. They should be asking those candidates what they intend to do as far as holding the line on spending and therefore holding the line on taxes that they are going to have to pay, holding the line on debt that they are going to have to pay the interest on every year but eventually they are going to have to pay off that debt.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. A wise man once said that ``if you are in debt, you are not free.'' So whether one is an individual or a business or the Federal Government, we have got to pay attention to debt and eventually have some kind of a plan to pay that debt off. Again, I would thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we are in a predicament in Congress right now, and that is finishing the appropriations bills. The appropriations process goes from fiscal year to fiscal year, that is, October 1 to October 1. So in just another week we are hitting the new fiscal year. So tomorrow, what we are going to do is pass what is referred to as a CR; it stands for a ``continuing resolution.'' We are now sort of arguing and trying to decide whether continuing spending for the next few weeks should be at the level it was this current fiscal year or whether it should be increased somewhat in terms of spending to accommodate inflation. The problem is that there are a lot of people in Congress, in the House and in the Senate, that want to spend more money. So what has happened in this Congress, in this government, is spending has been going up faster than inflation. I brought this chart and made up this chart quickly, and we can see how the spending line tremendously has increased over the past 5 or 6 years in terms of spending. Spending has some consequences in terms of its effect on the economy. The Republican Policy Committee met with Art Laffer, who I consider a very good economist in this country. We met last week. One of my questions to Art was, What is worse as far as its negative effect on economic growth, would it be increasing the debt or having tax increases? He said, in his opinion, they are both about the same kind of negative effect. Tax increases maybe have a greater economic effect in the short run; but in the long run, increasing the debt, that means we are going to take a lot of money out of circulation which, eventually, has just a negative effect on the economy. A lot of people are saying, well, look, we should be paying more attention to the economy. One way this Congress can pay more attention to allowing the economy to operate the way it should is be a little less overzealous in terms of regulation on business, in terms of our taxes on individuals and business, and when I say taxes on individuals, most of the businesses, the small businesses in the United States pay that individual income tax. So as we become more intrusive in that tax, it has a tendency of discouraging small economic growth, which is really the backbone, the mainstay of employment in the United States. That brings to mind a question I think that this body must deal with and must consider, and that is how big should the government be in terms of a percentage maybe of gross domestic product. How fast should expenditures rise? Is it reasonable to have the budget of the Federal Government increase three and four times as fast as inflation increases? And the conclusion is, as we are concerned about the economy, the answer is no, that we should hold the line on spending so we do not have to increase taxes and so we do not have to increase the Federal debt. Politicians have found out, however, that it ends up being to their advantage politically, it increases their chances of being reelected, if they spend more money, so they go home with more pork barrel projects; and they get on television and in the newspaper cutting the ribbon for the new pork that they brought home to their district, or they come up with more social programs to help relieve some problem in the United States. No one can say there are not a lot of problems, no one can say that the spending in the Federal Government probably does not do some good for somebody, but the tendency has been to expand government spending. Tonight I want to talk a little bit about the ramifications of increasing our public debt. What is the public debt? We have heard people brag that we have paid down part of the debt to the public in the last few years. The fact is that the total debt of the Federal Government has continued to increase every year. The debt can be divided into two portions. It is the Wall Street debt, the amount of money that we borrow from individuals that are at weekly Treasury auctions, and it is the money that we borrow from the trust funds, Social Security being the biggest one. So the money coming in from Social Security when we were pretty overzealous in the amount of increase in the Social Security taxes that we passed in 1983. We now are bringing in from that FICA tax, that 12.4 percent that we charge on everybody's wages for Social Security, we are bringing in $515 billion a year. Out of that $515 billion, this current year, in Social Security benefits, it is immediately sent out, that is, it comes in one week and it is out the next; and Social Security benefits are costing $452 billion, so there is a little extra money. What we did for a couple of years when we had the balanced budget, when the budget balanced, we used that little extra money to pay down some of the debt held by the public. But since we were borrowing that money from Social Security to pay down another debt, it is sort of like using one credit card to pay down some of the debt of another credit card; the total debt, the total obligation of this country continued to increase. The tendency has been to have government grow much faster than inflation, and if we project that increase out over several years, it is going to result in government getting way too big. Let me review a couple of the statistics. In 2001, the debt as a percentage of GDP, gross domestic product, was 33.1 percent, in 2002 it was 33.9 percent, and the projection for 2003 is 34.1 percent. So the Federal debt, even in terms of a percentage of our economy in this country, is growing. That means that we are leaving less money in the pockets of the American worker, the people who earned that money. Somehow, Congress is convincing more and more people that it must be good for them if we are coming up with more social programs, if we are coming up with more government programs to help them out, but the fact is that it is tremendously inefficient taking money away from my home State of Michigan or your home State of wherever, bringing it to Washington, running it through this bureaucracy, this political maze, and then what is left we send back to help out some social program of people that need help. When I am asked what projects or programs would I cut, it is difficult, because that is the predicament Congress now finds itself in, is arguing how big the appropriations bills should be. An election is coming up November 5, and the big spenders are going to criticize those who want to put a lid on spending and try to spend not more than what the President has recommended; they are going to go back to some of those special interests and say, well, look, those guys on that side of the aisle, probably it is the Democrats saying the Republicans, did not want to give you any more money for your very good project. So politics has come into the picture in terms of trying to get a handle on spending. Like I said earlier, most Members of Congress that come up with more pork barrel spending, that come up with more programs to help out some problem some place, probably have a greater tendency to be reelected. So there is really a lesser of a safeguard on increased spending than there should be. Here is another problem that we have developed as far as the progressivity of our tax system. Right now, 50 percent of Federal Government benefits go to individuals that pay less than 1 percent of the Federal income tax. So here is 50 percent of the people that are getting a lot of benefits for a little effort in terms of the percentage of the income tax that they pay; and so there are a lot of people in this country who say, well, a little bigger government, a few more programs that might help me would not be all that bad. That is the contest that we are running into as far as the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, we went up to the Federal Hall in New York City, the first time in over 200 years that Congress has moved a session of this body or the Senate out of the location of Washington, D.C. We met at Federal Hall where the Bill of Rights was passed; in 1789 where the first Congress met, where they passed the Bill of Rights, where George Washington was sworn in as our first President. It is my guess as I review the Constitution that our forefathers felt that government should be minimal, that mostly what was passed into law should be at the State level and not the Federal level, so there was some very precise language limiting what the Federal Government could do. We have sort of circumvented that effort, and we have passed more laws and more bills as we have claimed that more and more things are really involved in interstate commerce and, therefore, are a proper role of the Federal Government. Let me review for my colleagues the interest on the Federal debt. The interest on the Federal debt is becoming one of our largest expenditures. The interest on the Federal debt this year is $331 billion. In 2012 the projection is that the interest on the Federal debt is going to be $513 billion. The problem I think that bothers me and maybe the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) the most is the hoodwinking of the American people in confusing the American people about what the Federal debt really is. So as we talk and brag sometimes about the fact that we are paying down the debt, this chart represents the total Federal debt. It represents the fact that the total Federal debt, that what we owe, whether we owe it to Social Security, we have to pay it back; or whether we owe it to somebody that bought a bond on the weekly market of Treasury, it is a debt and obligation of this country. Even more than this, we do not discuss unfunded liabilities. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), for some comments on trying to be honest with what the Federal debt is.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. In fact, if the gentleman will yield, that is what was decided: The only way we can increase the deficit is by increasing by congressional action the debt ceiling. So the idea was to make it difficult, and for us to have to think through, do we really want to increase the debt on our kids and our grandkids, to make them pay back what we think should be our standard of living now? Just how fast this has grown, when the gentleman from Maryland and I, we came into Congress the same year in 1993, and at that time the Federal debt was $4 trillion. Today, the Federal debt is $6.2 trillion, almost a 50 percent increase. Ten years from now, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the way we are going by covering some of these overexpenditures with increased borrowing, it will increase by 50 percent again, and the debt will be $9 trillion. What do we do? How do we hold the line? We start out by being honest with the public, with the American people, on what this debt really is, and that it has a very negative effect on their lives, because here is government taking this money out of circulation. Here is money being bid up, if you will, whatever the bid is on interest rate, and saying, look, whatever the bid is, we will up it one because we have to have this money to satisfy the overzealous spending of Congress.