Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the Senate recently passed their farm bill. In that farm bill, they had payment limitations that I think is the kind of farm policy we should have in this country. I ask all my colleagues in this Chamber to support the idea of some kind of payment limitations, whether it be $200,000 or $300,000 or a half a million dollars, but something so that the megafarms and the megacorporations that own 50,000, 60,000, 80,000 acres are not capturing so much of the proceeds of our farm program payments. Madam Speaker, there are some people who say that there are payment limits for price supports. There are no payment limits for price supports. They can do an end-run. Let me just demonstrate the top five recipients of farm program payments for 1996 through 2000, according to the Environmental Working Group's Web site: Riceland Foods, $49 million; Farmers Rice Co-op, $38 million; Harvest States Co-op, $28 million; Tyler Farms, $23 million; and Producers Rice Mill, $19 million. It is reasonable to have farm policy that helps most of the farmers in this country. We can argue about what a family farm is, but what we cannot argue about is farm policy that gives most of the money to the megafarms.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of Congress regarding the crash of an Ecuadorean airliner, TAME flight 120, that happened on January 28. It was en route from Quito, Ecuador, to Cali, Colombia, via Tulcan, Ecuador. That morning farmers reported hearing a plane flying through thick cloud cover, and then a huge explosion. TAME flight 120 crashed into the slopes of a glacier-capped volcano in southern Colombia. The plane was destroyed on impact. Ninety-two people perished, including seven children and nine crew members. Rescue workers walked for 5 hours through rugged terrain to reach the site near the summit of the volcano, and very little was immediately found at the crash site, except for small pieces of the wreckage and, sadly, a passport and ID card belonging to one of the victims, a Colombian nun. I commend the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). I am pleased to be a sponsor and to join a distinguished bipartisan group of cosponsors in bringing this resolution to the floor this afternoon. The United States maintains close cultural and economic ties with both Colombia and Ecuador. It is, therefore, appropriate that we act to express Congress' condolences to the families of the victims of the crash and commend the professional emergency personnel from Ecuador and Colombia who responded to this tragic accident. Mr. Speaker, ``Muchas gracias al personal de rescate,'' which translated is: Thank you all personnel who were involved in the rescue mission. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 313, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 313) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the crash of Transporte Aereo Militar Ecuatoriano (TAME) Flight 120 on January 28, 2002.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Member and the chairman for bringing this resolution before the House. The Pakistani word for ``thank you'' is shukrva. So we express shukrva to all our Pakistani friends in this country and around the world, and especially to President Musharraf. He has made dramatic changes that most of us thought were impossible. It has made a huge difference in our efforts to succeed in the war against terrorism, and hopefully it is going to be the catalyst that allows us to solve many problems, including that of Kashmir and other areas around the world. So again I suggest we say shukrva to our Pakistani friends.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make some comments today on how everybody in America probably should do a little more in helping their fellow man in contributing some community service, either at the community or national level. I was this past week deciding on the essay topic that I ask seniors to write to apply for what I have called the LeGrand Smith Scholarship. It is named after my dad. I simply take all of the pay increases that I have had since I first ran in the Michigan Senate back in 1983; I have put these pay increases into an irrevocable trust for scholarships for graduating seniors. It is designed to reward and acknowledge those individuals in high school that are not only academically capable but also are willing to contribute to others in community service or in leadership positions in high school. Part of that decision in scoring of the committee that decides who the winners are is grading an essay on an essay topic. The committee was just trying to decide, and we had it narrowed down to two topics, why patriotism is important in America or why helping others and working in some community service or national service is important. We decided on the latter. Part of it was maybe because the President in his State of the Union address suggested that we have a Freedom Corps where every individual in America during their lifetime contribute 2 years of community or national service. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of individuals could gain significantly by serving in a community and national service program. I would envision the possibility of taking every senior when they graduate from high school and say that here is an opportunity for you to go maybe in 6 weeks of basic training and then serve in community service. In 1990 we passed a bill in Congress signed by the President, the community and national service legislation, that lays out 20 or 30 different types of community and national service. I envision a system where you could expand that to serve in your local communities, in your local hospitals. Certainly there is a tremendous need now for individuals for service at the national level in many aspects. A national service bill for high school students would have maybe the same kind of 6 weeks of basic training that many of us had in earlier years in boot camp. When I went into the Air Force, into boot camp, I thought I had a lot of discipline, self-discipline. As it turned out, getting up at 5 o'clock in the morning and going out and doing aggressive exercises and then making a very neat bed and keeping your clothes clean and your shoes shined, plus the patriotism that we learned in terms of working together, in terms of saluting the flag. But one thing that all of us that served in that basic training also learned in associating with individuals from all kinds of backgrounds, that the individual that had a different religious faith, that the individual that was yellow, black, tan or a different color ended up being just as qualified in their intelligence, just as qualified in their leadership ability, and it gave me a new perspective and also at the same time I think opened new vistas of opportunities of the responsibility of all of us to serve. When the President suggested a national service program, I wonder how many of us will respond. I think the response should be very aggressive. But I also think it should be considered that every graduating high school senior come into some kind of a program where they would go through 6 weeks of kind of basic training. And maybe with what happened September 11, it is especially important, because we have now learned that those individuals in the Taliban were trained to hate and hate Americans. Mr. Speaker, in combination with patriotism, I think community and national service is vital for everyone. I encourage all to participate.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make some comments today on how everybody in America should consider doing a little more to help others. Helping others in your neighborhood or contributing service, either at the community or national level should be considered an obligation. I was this past week deciding on the essay topic that I ask seniors to write, as part of their application to apply for what I have called the LeGrand Smith Scholarship. It is named after my dad. I simply take all of the pay increases that I have had since I first ran in the Michigan Senate back in 1983 and put those funds into an irrevocable trust for scholarships for graduating seniors. It is designed to reward and acknowledge those individuals in high school that are not only academically capable but also are willing to contribute to others in community service or in leadership positions in high school. Part of the scoring of the committee that decides winners, is the grading of an essay. The committee was deciding the essay topic and had it narrowed down to two topics; why patriotism is important in America or why helping others and working in some community service or national service is important. We decided on the latter. The President in his State of the Union address suggested that we have a Freedom Corps where every individual in America during their lifetime contribute 2 years of community or national service. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of individuals could gain significantly by serving in a community and national service program. I would envision the possibility of taking every high school senior when they graduate from high school to go into a community and national service program, this would be an opportunity for young people to go through maybe 6 weeks of basic training and then serve in national or community service. In 1990 we passed a bill in Congress signed by the President, the community and national service legislation, that establishes 20 plus different types of community and national service. I envision a system where you could expand that to serve in your local communities, in local hospitals, with senior groups or many other areas of need. Certainly there is a tremendous need now for individuals to serve at the national level in many aspects. A national service bill for high school students would have maybe the same kind of 6 weeks of basic training that many of us had in earlier years in boot camp where you learn discipline, respect for yourself and others as well as patriotism. When I went into the Air Force, into boot camp, I thought I had a lot of discipline, self-discipline. As it turned out, getting up at 5 o'clock in the morning and going out and doing aggressive exercises and then making a very neat bed and keeping your clothes pressed and your shoes shined as well as education about defending our country plus the patriotism that we learned was valuable. But one thing that all of us that served in that basic training also learned in associating with individuals from all kinds of backgrounds, was respect for others. We learned that individuals that had different religious faiths, individuals that were yellow, black, tan, white or whatever ended up being just as qualified in their intelligence, just as qualified in their leadership ability and just as nice of people as anyone else. It gave us a new perspective and also at the same time I think opened new vistas of opportunities and the feeling of responsibility to help others when they need help. When the President suggested a national service program, I wonder how many of us will respond. I think the response should be very aggressive. But I also think it should be a responsibility that every graduating high school senior come into some kind of a program where they would go through 6 weeks of kind of basic training and another four months of serving others. And maybe with what happened September 11, it is especially important. Mr. Speaker, in combination with patriotism, I think community and national service is a responsibility of all Americans. I encourage all to participate.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we learned from the September 11 attack and from the information gathered in Afghanistan to expect the unexpected. Part of the new commitment to homeland security is improving the security of our Nation's computer and networking infrastructure. In the past decade this networking has been firmly embedded in our economy, and we have become more dependent on these technologies. Whether it is delivering agricultural products or supporting banking and financial markets, moving electricity along interconnected grids, providing government services or maintaining our national defense, we have become dependent on computer networks for our economic and national security. The networks I think also are a potent symbol of our open society and free markets which thrive on the uninhibited flow of information. However, the technological advancement in computers and software and the networking and information technology which is a bill, H.R. 3400, which is coming before this body in the next several weeks, the potential threat of cyberattack is real and growing. Terrorists will always probe for our weakest points, so we must remain vigilant and confront these new realities. As we become even more dependent on computer networks and as terrorists become more technologically sophisticated, we should anticipate the possibility of attacks launched on cyberspace. Computer viruses, computer hackers, electronic identification theft are just a few of the new challenges we face. What is needed is this bill, which moves us into a comprehensive plan to address the growing linkages between national security and cybersecurity. We need to engage the best minds in America to make us immune from these kinds of attacks. H.R. 3394 does just that. It authorizes research programs at the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to decrease the vulnerability of our computer systems and address emergency problems related to computer networking and infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we have coordination among all government agencies in this effort, especially the military complex, if we are to be efficient, effective and if we are to succeed. We need this kind of legislation to move ahead; and I just want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and certainly our chairman, for the inspiration to timely move this bill forward; and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the President released his budget yesterday. Congress and probably many in America and throughout the world are starting to analyze just what this budget does. I compliment the President for sending out a warning to Congress that he is not going to stand for excessive discretionary domestic spending for additional social programs. I think most of us agree that his increase in spending for defense and national security is not only reasonable but is required, realizing what happened on September 11 and the fact of what we have discovered in Afghanistan, that there are many terrorists throughout the world dedicated to cause the same kind of damage that those 19 individuals did on September 11. We are faced with the fact that thousands of individuals went through that same kind of perverted religious indoctrination and eventually the training on how to be terrorists with a dedication to injure the people of the free world, especially in the United States, and destroy some of our symbols of the freedom and liberty that we have in this country. It is a $2.13 trillion budget, a budget that has continued to grow faster than inflation for the last 40 years. Mr. Speaker, my particular concern is the fact that government is growing so rapidly. And I would hope that we could comply with the President's suggestion that we hold down the discretionary domestic spending so that the deficit is minimized, or hopefully there will be no deficit this year in terms of all funds coming into the Federal Government versus the funds going out of the Federal Government. It was only a short time ago that both Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber pledged not to spend the Social Security surplus money. Maybe, maybe the kind of war that we are in justifies spending that money. But if I had had my druthers, I would have preferred that the President gave us a budget that was balanced, at least in the unified sense of total revenues coming in versus total expenditures going out. The reason for that is I think by the President suggesting that maybe it is okay this year to have an $80 billion deficit, it is going to open the door for spenders, it is going to open the door for individual Members of the House and the Senate to suggest that as long as the President says it is okay to have a little deficit spending, let us have more deficit spending for some of these, quote-unquote, important programs that we think should go back to my particular district. Pork-barrel spending has increased tremendously. I think that is because when Members learn that most of the other Members are getting things for their district, it is only fair for them in the treatment of their particular constituents to try to get pork-barrel spending for their particular district. I think pork-barrel spending has got to stop. It is my hope and my encouragement to the leadership of this House on both sides of the aisle that this Chamber pass a budget resolution that is in balance; that we say here is the possibility of the $80 billion that might go into a stimulus tax cut package to stimulate the economy, but, if that does not happen, we are going to balance the budget. The challenge now is holding the line on spending. Let me give one example of what has happened in the last 5 years. In 1998 Congress said we promise to balance the budget by 2002. That balanced budget was predicated on an estimate by both OMB and CBO that there would be approximately $1.4 trillion of revenue by 2002. Guess what the revenue actually is going to be in 2002, this fiscal year ending next October? The actual revenue is going to be $1.9 trillion. So my point is, Mr. Speaker, that revenues are much larger than we anticipated, but what happened is spending increased significantly more, so that we have ended up with a great deal of deficit spending. The difference between $1.4 trillion and $1.9 trillion in revenues, between the $1.4 trillion we estimated 5 years ago and the $1.9 trillion that is actually going to happen, even takes into consideration the tax cut we did last spring. I would suggest that it behooves the United States to have the kind of economic expansion we want by not going deeper into debt, causing extra demand by the government in the money that is available for borrowing, which is ultimately going to increase interest rates and ultimately going to have a depressive effect on the economy. I would close by again urging my Republican and Democratic friends to work towards a total unified balanced budget.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, the President of the United States is going to give his first official State of the Union Address. It will be the third time he has spoken before a joint session. I think the challenges facing this Nation are great. The President certainly is going to talk about the success so far in our war against terror, but I suspect he is also going to remind us of the tremendous challenge that we have, as a Congress, as an American people, to continue this fight. We do not know how long this war is going to go on. It could be for generations. The best defense against terror in this case is a good offense to get rid of the terror cells around the world. I think this is an excellent opportunity for this country and the rest of the free world to push as vigorously to resolve, hopefully once and for all, the conflicts in Ireland, between Palestine and Israel, and certainly dispute between the two nuclear powers of India and Pakistan looking at Kashmir. Many things can be done. I hope this Congress can continue to work with this President, even though this is an election year. Most people understand that in an election year the Republicans would like to regain a majority in the Senate and keep a majority in the House. Democrats would like to do what they can to retake a majority of the House and keep their majority in the Senate. I think the challenges are also great on spending. We have already acknowledged that we are going to reach into the surpluses of the Social Security Trust Fund and spend those revenues for other government spending. We had an emergency in this country on September 11, and like any family or any business that has a serious emergency, you come up with the funds to accommodate and fix that emergency as best you can. Those families and those businesses normally say, look, we are going to put aside less important expenditures and we are going to deal with the emergency. I hope that the President says the same thing ultimately, that, look, we now have to do a better job at prioritizing spending. We are going to deal with this emergency the way we have to. We will win the war on terrorism, but let us not drive this country deeper and deeper into debt, which means that we put our kids and our grandkids and our great-grandkids at risk in paying for the overexpenditure of this government. Prioritizing to me means that we cut down on some of the social programs that we were so willing to expand after the Cold War, as we cut down on military, as we cut down on our intelligence community efforts, and left ourselves weaker than we should have been September 11. I think a good example in showing how much spending has grown and become the problem of us running into a deficit is our projections of 1997. In 1998, we promised that we were going to balance the budget by 2002. At that time the projections for revenues for 2002 was a little over $1.4 trillion, and we were going to balance the budget because we were disciplining ourselves on spending. Actually the revenues projected last week for 2002 by CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, were approximately $1.9 trillion. So more revenues coming into the Federal Government than we thought was possible but still a deficit. Why? Because spending has increased even more than the dramatic increase in revenues in this country. So the question is and the challenge is, will the President tonight push this Congress and the American people to start prioritizing? Can we minimize the partisan bickering and blaming as we try to come to grips with a budget that is going to be challenging, if we are to avoid jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare and other programs by overspending, and borrowing more, and going deeper in debt? Welfare reform I hope the President talks about because the welfare reform bill that we passed in 1996 is expiring this year. There has already been some suggestions from some of the Senators that we have to modify work provisions. I think the welfare reform bill has been extremely successful, and we have got to be very careful not to pass a bad welfare bill.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wrote an open letter to the President which I would review at this time. ``I urge you to submit a budget in February that recognizes and addresses the rapid increases in deficit spending. The need to raise the debt ceiling within the next few weeks and the new CBO projections showing budget deficits in 2002 and 2003 underline the challenges we face. ``While the weak economy has played a substantial part, overspending is the primary cause of the current problem. When the last budget limitation agreement was reached in 1997, the Congressional Budget Office projected Federal revenues of $1.408 trillion for 2002 for a balanced budget. The actual figure was $1.893 trillion, or 41 percent more than was projected.'' So revenues are higher than expected. ``Unfortunately, spending grew even more--to $2.003 trillion-- enormously beyond the 1998 projections. ``We need to take a more serious'' role and I would insert the letter in the Record. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 22, 2002. Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, The White House, Washington,

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill H.R. 3178, which I am proud to co-sponsor. This important legislation will address research gaps and support the development of new and improved technologies and practices that will improve the security of our water infrastructure. As we respond to the horrific attacks of September 11 militarily and diplomatically, we must be able to assess and reduce our vulnerabilities at home to make our nation more secure. The safety and availability of our water supply is something that we tend to take for granted. Across the U.S., over 27 billion gallons of water are pumped each day. Some of our water infrastructure is extremely old and is subject to natural threats, accidents, and terrorists. A major contamination of public water, either accidentally or deliberately, could cause widespread panic, disrupt the economy and lead to a loss of public confidence in water supply systems throughout the country. In 1996, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection probed the security of the nation's critical infrastructures and determined that our water systems are highly vulnerable. In 1998, the President designated water systems as a critical infrastructure and assigned primary responsibility for this critical infrastructure. H.R. 3178 authorizes $12 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006 for the EPA to provide grants and other assistance for research, development, and demonstration of innovations to strengthen the security of water infrastructure systems. This includes processes and procedures that can be used to protect water systems and technologies for early warning systems, real-time monitoring sensors, water and wastewater treatment technologies, backup systems, and improved computer controls. Cyber security also is addressed. It is important that we not advertise our vulnerabilities and our response to them. I am pleased, therefore, that this legislation restricts access to the information developed under this program to those who need to know. Mr. Speaker, the critical importance of water to our nation would make H.R. 3178 necessary even without the current war on terrorism. In the wake of September 11, this legislation takes on renewed urgency, and I want to thank the Gentleman from New York and Chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Boehlert, for his work in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. This bill addresses the needs of the Department of Defense. It increases pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform, will improve our readiness, and support efforts to develop defenses against missile and terrorist attacks. As a conferee on this bill from the science committees, I want to spend a minute drawing the House's attention to a program authorized in the bill that, while not in the Defense Department, is nonetheless critical to our security. I am talking about the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program, which provides help to fire departments throughout the country. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, more public safety officers were lost in September 11 attacks than in any other single event in modern history. There is no telling how many lives these brave men and women saved, but it is estimated in the thousands if not tens of thousands. The Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program, which is administered by U.S. Fire Administration, provides funds to fire departments for training, personnel, protective equipment, communications equipment, and other items. This program is vital to ensuring that our Nation's fire departments are up to the job with which we have entrusted them. After September 11, no one can doubt that if the terrorist enemy can deliver a weapon of mass destruction--be it chemical, biological, or nuclear--it will. As the first line of defense after terrorists strike, firefighters must be prepared to respond to these sorts of incidents. However, without proper training, staff, and equipment, fire departments may not be as prepared as they would like to be. If we are to ask firefighters to assume these responsibilities, we must provide them support for personnel, training, communications equipment, safety equipment, and other tools to improve their readiness and capabilities. Last year, $100 million was provided for this program. For fiscal year 2002, more is needed. As a conferee to this bill, I offered an amendment for a substantial increase in funding for this program. I am pleased, therefore, that the conferees have agreed to boost authorized funding for this program to $900 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004. Also, to ensure that adequate personnel are available to implement the program, the amendment sets aside three percent of the authorized amount for administration. The Fire Administration should not be made to short change other programs, such as education and training, to administer the grants program. On September 11, the Nation's firefighters showed the world what courage means. If we expect the fire services--most of whom depend on volunteers--to deal with these kind of disasters, we have a responsibility to provide them with the resources they need. This conference report does that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity, and I commend the entire conference committee and staff for their hard work in getting this report, and certainly thank the Committee on Rules for a fair rule. One aspect of the bill that is especially important to me are the provisions for math and science education. In the Subcommittee on Research that I chair, we held several hearings on how to improve math and science education, where we have not been doing very well, especially considering the challenges ahead of us and the high-tech world that young people will be entering into. Today's information-driven economy and high-tech industry require workers, not just the specialists, not just the scientists, but the workers to have more math and science and technology skills than ever before. Understanding basic math and science is essential for individual prosperity and our Nation's continued economic growth. In this bill, we call on our world-class universities to play a greater role in improving the K-12 education, especially in math and science. And through research, through partnerships with local schools to develop better and more rigorous math and science curricula, and fellowships for elementary and secondary teachers, we can improve our math and science education in this country. I hope this legislation helps to ensure that every child develops the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the 21st century. I support the rule, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to talk about spending because one of this body's most capable chairmen of the Committee on Appropriations, Bill Young, is here before us. I see a great challenge facing us next year. With revenues down and spending for the aftermath of Sept. 11 up, it is going to be a challenge to hold the line on a budget. Increasing our debt means that we are leaving a larger mortgage to our kids and our grandkids. With any emergency, whether a business, or a family, or a government, we should start prioritizing. The family or business would reduce unnecessary spending so as to have money for the emergency. Here in Washington we should look at some less-important expenditures of the Federal Government or those that can be delayed. Use the money saved for the important things Congress should do to help strengthen the economy and fight the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by reporting that our current debt is $5.879 trillion; our debt limit is $5.95 trillion. If we do not prioritize, we are going to be increasing our debt and leaving a greater burden for our kids.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, everybody talks so calmly about Social Security. Let me just stress that the greatest danger is doing nothing. I would suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that everyone that criticizes anybody else's plan should come up with their own plan that is going to keep Social Security solvent. Look, we all agree this is a great program. Fifty percent of the people on retirement today would be at the poverty level if they did not have Social Security. So what are we going to do? I just feel so strongly, and it is somewhat irritating that it is easy to criticize, to nit and pick. But I would humbly suggest that everybody that criticizes anybody else's plans, including the commission's, should come up with their own prompt proposal that keeps Social Security solvent. Now, some people say, well, look, just pay back what we owe the trust fund and we will still be able to pay 70 percent of the benefits in 2034. Well, it is all going to take money. After there is less revenues coming in starting in 2018 than is required to pay benefits, the money has to come from someplace. So we will come up with the money and pay back everything we owe the trust fund and then benefits are going to be cut 30 percent, and then, a few years later, 65 percent. That is not acceptable. The longer we put off a decision, the more drastic the changes are going to have to be made. Let me suggest that nobody is suggesting privatizing Social Security. The commission came up with three proposals today. The middle proposal says, for example, an individual can invest, and it is optional, it is all optional, an individual can invest 4 percent of their taxable earnings, if they want to, into their privately owned account. So if they die before 65, it goes into their estate and not back to the government; and they are going to offset future benefits, assuming that they get a 2 percent rate of return on that interest. Even government bonds can do better than that. Let us move ahead, let us be positive, let us come up with proposals that will save Social Security. Things have changed so much since I introduced my first Social Security bill in 1994. Now we are talking about the reality of a problem. America is becoming better informed. But until America realizes where their Social Security checks come from, we are probably not going to convince most Americans that we need to fix the problem. Where it comes from is existing workers. It is a Ponzi game. Existing workers today put in their money, and it is immediately sent out to existing retirees. That needs to be changed over time, and let us get with it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just express my concern at scheduling a bill that requires taking $15 billion out of the general fund to be on the suspension calendar. I am concerned that this is going to end up being a disadvantage to railroad workers, because the railroad has said when they need more taxes, they will increase the tax rate. So here again, I am very concerned that we are taking this bill that is so expensive up on suspension; and I would, at the appropriate time, ask for a roll call vote. I rise in opposition to H.R. 10. I do not oppose what this bill is trying to accomplish. Railroad workers should have the opportunity to invest their money in the stock market and earn a higher rate of return. I oppose this bill because it will not achieve its intended goal. This bill would cut taxes and raise benefits for railroad retirement beneficiaries in exchange for promises to pay higher taxes in the future. This is an irresponsible and shortsighted approach to reform. This bill's supporters will dispute this. They will say things like this bill ``modernizes'' the system. They will say, ``it's their money, we should let them invest it.'' They will say, ``we only want to let the railroads do what everyone else does.'' Don't believe it for a minute. First, this bill does not modernize the railroad retirement system. There's nothing ``modern'' about increasing benefits today while putting off tax increases until tomorrow. That's the oldest trick in the book. Second, despite what we will hear from the other side, it's not their money. The railroad retirement program has paid out more in benefits than it has collected in payroll taxes every single year since 1957. The surplus that exists today in the railroad retirement trust fund is made up entirely of taxpayer subsidies enacted by Congress over the years. Third, even if the railroads were responsible for all of the money in the trust fund, that does not mean they can afford to increase benefits and reduce payroll taxes at the same time. According the actuaries at the Railroad Retirement Board, the higher returns earned from investing in the stock market won't pay for the tax cuts and benefit increases they have proposed. As a result, this bill will reduce the trust fund by nearly 65% and trigger an automatic payroll tax increase of nearly 70% on employers. The supporters will insist the bill places the responsibility to pay future benefits on the railroads if their investments don't work out. But, let me read to you what the railroad industry thinks of its responsibility. Here is a quote from the United Transportation Union Newsletter dated May of 2000: The legislation also requires that the railroads would be responsible if the trust fund falls below a certain level. If this happens, a tax would automatically be placed solely on the carriers in order to replenish the fund. In order to add a final assurance to the integrity of the fund, it is still bound by the full faith and credit of the United States government. They would be required to pay the obligations of the fund if, for some reason, the other safety nets in place were insufficient. Earlier this year, the Lincoln Journal Star [8/15/01] reported: Other unions and the Association of American Railroads are promoting the bill as a self-financed shoo-in. In fact, the U.S. government would still back the retirement fund, acknowledged Obie O'Bannon, vice president of legislative affairs for the association. But, he pointed out, the ``automatic tax ratchet'' would require the railroads to kick in more money any time the fund's balance falls below four times annual benefits, so that's protection that would mean all U.S. railroads would face insolvency before the federal liability applies. Let me repeat the last sentence because some of my colleagues might have missed its implication. The article says, ``all railroads would face insolvency before the federal liability applies.'' That statement might seem overly dramatic until you take a look at the estimates prepared by the Railroad Retirement Board. According to the actuaries, the bill would increase the employer payroll tax by nearly 70 percent over the next twenty-five years. That's an increase the railroads readily admit they cannot afford to pay. Finally, those who support this bill will insist they only want to let the railroads invest their own funds--so-called Tier II--like everyone else. Unlike other private sector pension plans that must comply with the funding requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), this bill would allow the railroads to reduce their payroll taxes and increase their benefits before they ever earn a single penny on Wall Street. Moreover, it should be noted that despite claims to the contrary, the bill would not be limited to the use of Tier II funds. The National Association of Retired Veteran Railroad Employees (NARVE) continues to tell its members-- . . . not a dime of Tier 1 money is used for railroad early retirement, either under current law or under our reform bill. The money for early retirement is paid for entirely by rail workers and employers through Tier 2 taxes. . . . In reality, the amendment requires all of the funds remaining in the Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account (Tier I) at the end of each year be transferred to the new railroad investment account and used to pay for Tier II benefits. That means, Social Security funds will be used to pay early retirement benefits for railroad workers. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to railroad workers retiring at age 60, or any other age they can afford. But, I am opposed to using social security funds to pay for non-social security benefits. That is exactly what this bill does. I understand the frustration railroad workers must feel having to come to Congress to ask for legislation to improve their retirement benefits. However, the railroad retirement program is not just an industry pension fund. It is also a federal entitlement program that is ultimately backed up by the U.S. taxpayer. Congress has a duty and a responsibility not only to consider what is best for the railroads, but also what is fair to the taxpayers. As currently written, this bill would essentially allow the railroads to borrow $15 billion--interest free--from their own pension fund to pay for lower taxes and higher benefits and then try to make them pay it back at a rate they cannot afford. Fixing this bill would require a number of changes. Foremost among these changes would be the requirement that the railroads actually earn a higher rate of return on their investments before they reduce their taxes and increases their benefits. I believe railroad workers deserve the opportunity to invest in the stock market and earn a higher rate of return. I would like to help develop a plan to accomplish this goal. Unfortunately, the bill before us today is fundamentally flawed. I would urge my colleagues who care about the future of Railroad Retirement to vote against this bill. Railroad workers deserve better and we can do better.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from the Presidential Commission on Social Security meeting. This morning they released their plan that they will be reviewing and presenting to the President on the 21st of this month. They presented three proposals. Earlier this year, I encouraged the commission to come to agreement on one proposal. I am somewhat concerned, with three proposals, that we end up bickering in this Chamber about the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal and use it as an excuse to do nothing. It would have been much better if the commission had developed one proposal. Briefly, the three proposals allow optional, worker owned investments. The first proposal allows an investment of 2 percent of our taxable income and then offsets future Social Security benefits to the extent and with the assumption that that investment in private accounts will accumulate 3.5 percent return on investment. So they assume that that is 3.5 percent, and deduct that compounded earnings value from future benefits. The second proposal allows 4 percent of taxable income, not to exceed $1,000 a year, but provides that they are only assuming 2 percent return on that proposal to determine reductions in future benefits. Investments would be limited to safe investments, and all plans are optional. Everything that our personal account would accrue above the 2 percent would be an increase in ultimate retirement benefits. These plans are especially beneficial for those individuals under 40 years of age that have a period of time for the magic of compound interest to work. The third proposal is based on the premise that it is important to resolve Social Security, but it is more important to keep promised benefits. So it appears that it would take a tremendous amount of financing from other sources other than the payroll tax to accommodate that particular proposal. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I told the commission that I was concerned that they must do a better job communicating to the American people the predicament that Social Security now finds itself in. Social Security is insolvent. We know how many people there are and when they are going to retire. We know that people will live longer in retirement. We know how much they will pay in and how much they will take out. We also know that payroll taxes will not cover benefits, starting in 2015, and that the shortfalls will add up to $120 trillion in the 75 years following 2015. Today's value of that shortfall is a little over $9 trillion. This graph simply represents our short-term benefit, because we have been increasing taxes, payroll taxes. Every time Social Security was in trouble, we would increase the taxes. So in the short run, until 2015, 2016, 2017, someplace in those years, there is more money coming in than we need. But after that, the red portion of this graph represents the $120 trillion that will be needed in addition to Social Security taxes. Something needs to be done if we are going to keep this most important program secure and solvent. A lot of people have said that the economic growth will fix Social Security. That is not true, because as wages increase, so do the benefits. So increasing the economy of this country with more jobs and more benefits in the long run simply results in a greater requirement for payouts. When the economy grows, workers pay more in taxes, but they are going to get it out. Growth makes the number look better now, but leaves a larger hole later. I think this Social Security Commission has done a service by at least laying out three proposals, all of which eventually will add to the solvency of Social Security. The question is, do we want to allow some privately owned account for private investments? This is a graph that I made up just to show what has happened in the last 100 years in terms of the returns of stock investments. We see the ups and downs, but the average over the last 100 years is 6.7 percent. That compares to about 1.7 percent that the average retiree is going to receive as a return on the money they and their employer put into Social Security for them. So, that is the problem: there is not a very good return on your Social Security taxes. It is not a good investment. Everybody, on average, that is working now and paying in can expect at retirement time the equivalent of a 1.7 percent return. I would like to conclude by congratulating the commission for their work. I will help increase a understanding by the American people that there is a huge problem. We have come a long way since my first Social Security bill in 1994. I hope this report is the kind of stimulus and catalyst that will allow this Chamber to move forward to assure that we save Social Security.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask my colleagues is how much more, how much deeper should we go in debt in this country? The current authorized debt that we passed several years ago is $5,950 billion, and we were actually projecting just a few months ago, last May, that we would not have to increase the debt limit. Our current debt, the debt limit as passed by law is $5,950 billion. The current debt is $5,860 billion. So if we implement what we are talking about for next year's budget, if all of the bills that have been passed in the House were implemented, then we are going back into deficit spending, which means we are going to have to increase the debt of this country. It seems to me that we should be budgeting in a way that every family has to budget, that every business has to budget, and that if something comes up that is very important we look at other portions of that budget that we might reduce in order to accommodate the higher priority spending. In this case, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues that the higher priority spending is to assure security and to do what we can to make sure that the economy again comes back strong as quickly as possible. But if we do that without going into debt like we were some years ago, driving the debt of this country up, if you will, driving the mortgage that our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay off because of our excessive spending, if we are not to go back into that kind of deficit spending, then we are going to have to prioritize. How do we prioritize? Is there some spending of this Congress, is there some pork spending, is there some spending that is less important than driving us deeper into debt? Let me just suggest, as we discuss economic stimulus packages, at what point of overspending that is going to result in higher interest rates. Overspending means the government has to borrow more money. We go into competition with business and individuals for that available money supply out there; and, in fact, Congress bids up interest rates to get what they want. So at what point do we decide that increased interest rates are as much of a downer for economic recovery as maybe some stimulus package or some spending that some Members say are important to their economy locally? At what point does it balance? How much should we go in debt in future spending? I would suggest to my colleagues that the gimmick of the lockbox that we passed, Democrats and Republicans together, was a good effort, suggestion, indication, that we would not go back to spending the Social Security surplus. This year, Social Security is going to bring in a surplus of about $160 billion. But the way we are going, we are going to spend all of that Social Security surplus. I say this is not good. I say that belt-tightening is called for, and prioritization of spending is called for. So I would not only suggest to this Chamber but certainly to the Senate, certainly to the President and the administration, to start prioritizing spending so that we minimize the amount that we are going to drive our kids and our grandkids into indebtedness that sometime, someplace, somehow, they are going to have to pay off. Last May, let me just tell my colleagues how rapidly things have changed. Last May, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimated that our surplus for this 2002 fiscal year would be $304 billion. $304 billion surplus. Now, with the bills that have passed the House, with the bills that have passed the Senate, all of them have not passed the Senate, but with all of the appropriation bills and the stimulus package, we are actually now deficit spending, spending all of the Social Security surplus, spending all of the Medicare-Medicaid surplus and going back into debt, which means that sometime our kids are going to have to come up with either the increased taxes or the reduced living standards from government that we have provided to date. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that I think there are a lot of areas of spending that are of lesser importance, and simply because the lockbox has now been, if you will, broken open, is not the excuse to spend all kinds of money for all kinds of projects.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a bill, H.R. 3400, that I think moves in the direction of establishing spending priorities. That legislation provides for beefing up the kind of research that is going to stimulate economic growth. A companion bill develops extra protection against cyber terrorism. I chair the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science. The bill increases our emphasis on basic research for information technology and networking, which has been so important in our economic expansion. The other bill increases our research effort to counter cyberterrorism. We will take up these two bills tomorrow in the Committee on Science. As we approach additional spending on defense, we need to understand that defense spending has gone down while social spending since 1991 has increased by about 30 percent; and we need to start setting priorities that are going to help the two main goals that this Congress should be looking at: one is the defense and security of the people of this country, and the other is continued economic growth. Our goal should be to reduce spending that is lower priority so as to accommodate security and economic needs without mounting huge deficits.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call special attention to the achievements of the Lumen Christi High School football team of Jackson, Michigan. On Saturday, November 24, Lumen Christi won the Football State Championship for the second year in a row. Led by the 2001 season's coach of the year Herb Brogan, the Lumen Christi team with a record this year of 14-0, has now won 28 consecutive games, being one of the top teams in all classes in the state of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to recognize all the 2001 Lumen Christi High School football team for their dedication to the team and their commitment to the hard work it takes to win a championship: Matt Hohne, Greg Wolvin, Kevin Coffman, Ted Piepkow, Corey Crowley, Matt Bigelow, Drew Morgan, Adam Hudechek, Paul Gross, Travis Warner, Nate Lefere, Michael Ellis, Eric Adamczyk, Brad Chase, Justin Whitney, Michael Devine, Gaelen Callahan, Ron Davis, K.C. Kutyna, Matt Kuhl, Peni Sete, Scott Ball, Matt Ojeda, Erik Wilson, Joe Smigielski, Derek Tracy, Josh Hunt, John Gonzales, Matt Walker, Casey Thompson, Clayton Richardson, David Dailey, Nick Mangas, Andy Gorczyca, Kyle Ruge, Tim Gonzales, Thomas Dailey, Andy Foster, Mike Todaro, Kyle Martin, Johnny Fry, Andy Walsh, Rob Cole, Thomas Wheeler, Patrick Daly, Adam Bowditch, Bryce Brown, Mike Frey, Chris Putra, Chris Fouty, Nick Stieber, Joel Chase, Bryan Chase, Jeremy Schrot, Thomas Devine, Quentin Wheeler, Ryan Daniel Karasek, and Jim Devine. Head Coach Herb Brogan was assisted by his fine coaching staff: Joe Williams, Dan Crowley, Bryan Ziegler, Pat Laughlin, Pete Lefere, Mike Armeli, Joff Marcantel, Sean Brogan, Tim Sullivan, Frank Slaby, Pat Neville, Ted Cole, Mike Tash, and Jerry Sykes, and the team managers Sara Duffy, Lisa Booth, and Crystal Carlson, and trainer Carrier Stevens. Finally, I would like to offer my thanks and congratulations to the Lumen Christi High School community--the students, alumni, faculty, staff and all the supporters from the Jackson area. As principal Father Thomas Reiden knows well, this championship could not have been accomplished without their unshakable commitment to the team this year and the many previous years. We are proud of all the Lumen Christi players and coaches for their accomplishments.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jennifer Jean Smith on the release of True North, a musical album that she both wrote and composed. Jennifer's love of music and words began at an early age. Always a singer and performer, grade school led to choirs, show choirs and many gigs as a soloist. An outgoing yet introspective young Jennifer displayed her writing skills at an early age. Little blank books became filled with poetry, and an antique typewriter became a favorite tool for composing stories. An old upright piano, passed on by Jennifer's grandmother, Ruth Smith, a beloved music teacher and musician, served as the instrument for the composition of early songs, including ``The Energy Crisis'' written in the early 70s. Jennifer said, dreaming of being a star is one thing, but for a small town girl raised on a dairy farm, actually knowing how one goes about such a thing is quite another. ``There were many challenges.'' Her first years of college were spent at Michigan State University where she pursued a career that included music. Jennifer moved to Ann Arbor in 1990. Once settled and working at the University of Michigan, she turned her attention again to making music and writing songs. Picking up and learning to play the guitar soon led to many finished songs and trips to Nashville. Jennifer launched her own music publishing company, The Michigan Rose Music Co., and record label, Michigan Rose Records. In June 2001, Michigan Rose Records released its first single, True North, the title cut to Jennifer's first CD. True North--relating to the life and death of Dale Earnhardt, the race car hero--was recorded along with four other original songs in Nashville this past May. The CD, which was recorded and produced by Phil Dillon at Nickel City Studios, features her daughter Jackie on background vocals and a group of world-class Nashville studio musicians. Despite being an independent release, the single has received airtime on major country radio stations across the United States and has resulted in further opportunities to write and sing--the beginning of a long-awaited dream. Mr. Speaker, we congratulate Jennifer Jean Smith for her perseverance and success.