Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, we have spent the last year and a half examining the safety of the new biotech foods. Safety is extremely important. In our final report, called ``Seeds of opportunity'' we concluded that not only a great positive benefit to consumers all over the world, but they are safe. Our regulatory system in the United States is the strictest in the world. Between USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, we have the kind of regulatory review and testing of these biotech products that has been acclaimed by many in the scientific community as being over adequate. There are strong suggestions that we are over regulating and therefore stifling the development of products that have so much potential to safely help people. There are now over 1,000 GMO products, genetically modified products, that have been approved that are on the market. The consequences of stifling this innovation by overregulation, and scare tactics is real and serious.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. My concern is the implication that the review process is not adequate and the implication that somehow there is some kind of danger with genetically modified products. That is totally incorrect. I think you heard the quote from the National Academy of Sciences suggesting that USDA, EPA and FDA have a good coordinated system to review and regulate agricultural products. The potential scare, from un-scientific accusations does a great disservice not only to the scientific community but to the agricultural producers of this country.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to require disclosure of political activities by section 527 organizations. The legislation is identical to the McCain amendment which passed the Senate. This is an excellent step forward in campaign finance reform. The bill will require section 527 organizations to disclose their contributions and expenditures on political campaigns. While the bill does not address the campaign activities of other 501 organizations, coverage of the 527s will address the fastest growing problem in campaign advertising--independent groups that can spend millions of dollars to influence a campaign--without disclosing their contributors. Eventually we must have total disclosure of all groups that try to influence voting. If the American people know where the money is coming from and can measure the significance of the special interest bias they will ultimately make the best decision.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 312 calls on states to more closely regulate certain types of loans and establish ceilings on the rates of interest that can be charged for them. I oppose H. Con., Res. 312 for two reasons. The first is that regulation of lending markets, especially the establishment of ceilings on interest rates, can harm those who most need access to them. None of us can help but be appalled by unscrupulous lenders who take advantage of needy borrowers. However, the regulations encouraged by this resolution would most likely reduce the number and availability of lenders. As a member of the Michigan legislature, I remember that we attempted to ``help'' people in a similar manner by restricting lending practices and interest rates to what we consider a ``fair'' rate. The result wasn't that interest rates were lowered. Instead, the borrowers came to us and asked us to remove the restrictions because they couldn't get loans any more. Mr. Speaker where there is competition, rates of interest are best left to the marketplace rather than to the notions of politicians. Second, I find it odd that we in Washington need to tell the states how they should handle what are traditionally local measures. We certainly have no greater understanding of these issues than our counterparts at the state level.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri. This amendment would prohibit funding of the United States- European Union Consultative Group on Biotechnology until such time as the U.S. trade representative certifies that the E.U. has a transparent, science-based, and fair regulatory process for approving agricultural biotechnology products. Mr. Chairman, on April 13, I released a report, Seeds of Opportunity, that reviewed the benefits, risks, and oversight of agricultural biotechnology. What I found is that biotechnology is safe and has incredible potential to enhance nutrition, feed a growing world population, open up new markets for farmers, and reduce the environmental impact of farming. Its potential benefits are limited only by the imagination and resourcefulness of our scientists. However, despite an unblemished record of safety, this technology has come under attack from well-financed activist groups who have created an atmosphere of fear in Europe. Europe's political leaders have capitalized on these concerns to promote protectionist regulatory policies that have shut out American farm products from European markets. In a free-trade environment, trade decisions should be science-based, as World Trade Organization rules stipulate. I think it is worth noting that no new agricultural biotechnology product has been approved in Europe for over 18 months. American researchers and farmers need to know that they will have a market for their products. The U.S. trade office should ensure that access to existing markets for agricultural products is maintained and that international agreements are neutral with respect to the products of agricultural biotechnology. Mr. Chairman, I do not see the point in moving ahead with the U.S.- E.U. Consultative Group while the E.U. continues to persist with protectionist policies that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of WTO rules. This amendment sends a strong message to the E.U. that the United States will not tolerate E.U. foot-dragging that hurts U.S. farmers and an emerging biotechnology industry. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about one of America's most important programs and that is Social Security. Looking at this chart, we see the pie graph of all of the Federal Government's $1.8 trillion Federal spending. The bottom piece of pie represents Social Security. Social Security now is 20 percent of everything that the Federal Government spends. Medicare is at 11 percent, and both programs are growing very rapidly in terms of outlays. Senior programs now utilize over 50 percent of total Federal spending. Because of the demographics, because of the fact that individuals are living longer and because of the slowing down of the birthrate over the years the problem is exacerbated. When the baby boomers retire we will have this exceptionally large number of individuals born shortly after World War II retire. They will change status from paying tax into the Social Security System to retirees that take out, along with the fact of increasing life span that is going to additionally complicate the challenges of keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent. In this morning's Washington Post, a news piece quoted Vice President Gore as saying that Governor Bush's plan, if he does what he says and protects all current retirees against having any cut in benefits, it would take 14 years off the already short life, and Social Security would go bankrupt by 2023. This statement is false. Most every bill introduced in the House and Senate in fact do make sure there is no reduction in retirees benefits. To the contrary, the Vice President is suggesting that we take the Social Security surplus and pay down the debt held by the public. That means, if you will excuse the analogy, using one credit card account to pay down another credit card account. Mr. Gore is suggesting, taking the Social Security Trust Fund surplus money and using that money to pay back another debt, a debt held by the public. But that does nothing to solve the long term solvency. At such time there is less Social Security tax revenue coming in than is required to pay benefits, in about 2014, the debt starts increasing again and as you see on this chart, debt soars, and we leave our kids and grand kids a huge mortgage. That is why it is so important that we have some structural changes to keep Social Security solvent. I hope what the Vice President was quoted in the newspaper was not a correct quote, because the statement has been repeatedly demonstrated as false by the Social Security actuaries themselves. There are several plans. In fact, most of the plans that have been introduced in the Senate, most of the plans that have been introduced in the House are plans that reflect what Governor Bush has suggested. That is they actually make sure that we do not cut benefits for existing retirees and we do not cut benefits for near-term retirees. I will give a few examples. The Senate bipartisan Social Security plan introduced in the Senate by six Senators; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich's) plan; and my Social Security proposal contains no changes to the benefit levels of current retirees and all of these proposals have been certified by the Social Security Administration as keeping Social Security solvent. So to play light with such an important program I think does a disservice. It would have been my hopes that President Clinton and Vice President Gore would have taken the opportunity in the last 2 years to move ahead with plans and proposals to keep Social Security solvent. With White House leadership, we could have done that this year. It is going to take the leadership of a President to bring Democrats and Republicans together to make sure that we save this important program. Simply by creative financing such as adding ``I.O.U.s'' to the trust fund, that does not honestly deal with the fact that there is going to be less revenues coming in than what is needed to pay benefits is a disservice because it does not solve the problem. Briefly, I want to go over my Social Security proposal, the Social Security Solvency Act for 2000. It allows workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in their own personal retirement accounts. I start at 2.5 percent. It may be appropriate that government defines limits on how you invest that money to make sure they are safe investments. It won't take much investment wetdown to make sure that it brings in more money than the 1.7 percent that economist predict workers can expect as a return on the payroll taxes paid in that they will get through their retirement years from Social Security. 1.7 percent is what the economist predict you are going to get in your retirement years. We can do better than that in a CD at your local bank. The problem is that government doesn't save and invest your money, it spends it. But I think the other important consideration is that the Supreme Court has said that there is no obligation of the Federal Government to give you Social Security benefits. The Social Security tax is a separate tax. Benefits is a decision made by Congress and the President. That is why when we have gotten in trouble in several times, such as in 1977, again in 1983, we increased taxes and cut benefits. Let us not let that happen again. The highlights of my bi-partisan Social Security bill, H.R. 3206, are as follows: Allows workers to own and invest a portion of their Social Security taxes by creating Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (PRSAs); PRSA investment starts at 2.5% of wages and gradually increases; PRSA limited to a variety of safe investments; Uses surpluses to finance PRSAs; No increases in taxes or government borrowing; PRSA account withdrawals may begin at 59\1/2\ while the eligibility age for fixed benefits is indexed to life expectancy; Tax incentive for workers to invest an additional $2,000 each year; Gradually slows down benefit increases for high income retirees by changing benefit indexation from wage growth to inflation; Divides PRSA contributions between couples to protect low income and non-working spouses; Widows or widowers benefit increased to 110% of standard benefit payment; Repeals the Social Security earnings test; Scored by the Social Security Administration to keep Social Security solvent; and Maintains a Trust Fund reserve.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment helps assure that we have more accurate statistics that guide over $2 trillion in State and Federal spending and hundreds of billions of dollars in wage decisions and revenue- sharing decisions. If this amendment had been taken up last week, there were several individuals that had indicated that they would like to speak on the importance of accurately funding BEA, the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That is because we depend so much on what happens with BEA. Seventy percent of our determinations coming from the Congressional Budget Office, coming from the President's Office of management and budget, is from BEA. The ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) as well as two potential chairmen of that committee indicated that it is important that we adequately fund BEA. This amendment contains $4.3 million that we put into BEA to help make sure that they can do their job. Here is the problem. They have been cut 12 percent in real terms over the last several years, and the economy is changing so dramatically that they cannot be underfunded with the freeze in personnel they have had for the last several years. It will be difficult if not impossible to do the job we need them to do. I would just like to quote a couple of people, and I will start out with Alan Greenspan. Alan Greenspan said, and I quote, ``I am extraordinarily reluctant to advocate any increase in spending, so it's got to be either a very small amount or a very formidable argument, and I find in this case that both conditions are met.'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote a comment from Robert Shapiro, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs: ``Without your amendment, the bill would seriously threaten our capacity to understand and measure the rapidly changing American economy.'' Then he goes on to say, the new expanded responsibility that BEA has in this new economy and their predictions are so crucial. BEA tracks economic activity and calculates the U.S. domestic products. BEA statistics underlie virtually all economic projections in both business and government. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Kentucky that I have not gone out and solicited political supporters for this amendment. This is not a very glitzy amendment. It is not very exciting. But please consider its importance. Consider the fact that, without these kinds of estimates being accurate, we are going to end up having very poor economic projections. According to OMB and CBO, discrepancies in the current GDP data, that is what BEA does, can change estimates of government revenues by as much as $200 billion over the projection period. A recent example: in 1998, CBO projected a unified budget, listen to this, in 1998, CBO projected a unified budget deficit of $70 billion for this year based on BEA estimates. As it turns out, there is a $200 billion surplus. This $270 billion discrepancy can be largely traced to the BEA data. Mr. Chairman, they have been doing an excellent job, but we have shortchanged them. They are 12 percent below what they were in real terms. The President suggested in his budget that we increase them by $5 million; this amendment will only mean that we increase them by $4.3 million. I think it is important to make a quick comment on the offset. The amendment draws from the State Department's Educational and Culture Exchange Account. We did not pass the amendment when we finished last Friday to take something like $90 million out of that account. CBO informs me that they are only going to spend half of the money that they get in this account. This amendment takes only $4 million. This account is one of the few that received a significant increase in this legislation. While I support cultural exchange, I feel that our need for accurate data on the economy for government and business is more pressing and justifies this small transfer. The Educational and Cultural Exchange fund would still receive slightly more funding than it got for FY 2000 under this amendment. Conclusion Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve said the following of BEA in February: We are moving into an economy, the structure of which none of us has ever seen before. . . . This means that a lot of the things we examine in the economy are very poorly represented in our current statistics. . . . [A]dditional funds could probably very effectively be spent to improve the quality of our statistics both for the private sector, which is crucial, and for those of us who have to be involved in governmental economic policy. Alan Greenspan: I am extraordinarily reluctant to advocate any increase in spending. So it's got to be either a very small amount or a very formidable argument. And I find, in this case, that both conditions are met. I ask for my colleagues' support on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I just think it is so very important that the chairman and ranking member of this committee consider the importance of this amendment, and I hope that they will concur. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the letter I quoted from earlier from Mr. Robert Shapiro. United States Department of Commerce, The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Washington, DC, June 26, 2000. Representative Nick Smith, 306 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Smith: Thank you for your letter asking our views on your proposal to add $4.35 million to the $43.8 million in the Appropriations Committee's FY 2001 budget for the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Without your amendment, the bill could seriously threaten our capacity to understand and measure the rapidly changing American economy. The basic measures produced by BEA range from the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the balance of payments, to domestic investment and state and local income. BEA is also the world's leading statistical agency in the area of measuring the New Economy--including the development of innovative techniques to measure software as business investments; rapid quality changes in semiconductors, computers and telecommunications equipment; and productivity in banking. The quality of spending and investment decisions across government and the private sector will depend on the BEA's ability to continue these efforts. With an additional $4.35 million in support, BEA will be able to measure additional aspects of the New Economy critical for American business and government--including the size of e-commerce markets; the output of industries such as business services, financial services and education that rely heavily on information technologies; the role of stock options in compensation; and the dimensions of investment, consumption, and wealth. Improving the accuracy of BEA's national statistics will also help end the periodic revenue surprises associated with Administration and Congressional budget forecasts, and improve the allocation of more than $100 billion a year in federal funds based on BEA state and local income estimates. In recent Senate testimony, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that BEA is one of the few areas of government that meet his conditions for increased spending. As Congress continues consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations, I hope your colleagues will seriously consider the enormous benefits to the United States from fully funding the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Sincerely, Robert Shapiro, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding to me, and I appreciate the Chairman's frugal manner and the fact that there are not a lot of excess appropriations in his budget. However, in this particular account, the Educational and Cultural Exchange Account, there was an increase. This amendment still leaves that account with more money than they had last year. And, again, I would just call to the chairman's attention the fact that BEA has been cut 12 percent in real terms since 1993. It is being held flat this year, even though there are tremendous changes in our economy to calculate. Do I understand the chairman to say that he will work, as this goes to conference and through the process, to try to more adequately fund the BEA?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the President is releasing his mid-session economic review. That review indicates that there will be over $800 billion more revenues coming into the Federal Government in the next 10 years than was projected just last January, $800 billion. There is a substantial increase in this year, 2000, of $45 billion more than we anticipated just 6 months ago. It is $64 billion more next year in 2001 than we anticipated. That means that the Social Security ``lockbox'' as well as the Medicare ``lockbox'' that we passed last week is going to be maintained. It means that, with a little discipline from this body, we will not be spending that Social Security surplus or the Medicare trust fund surplus. I think we are in a unique position and that unique position means that we have an opportunity now to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. We have an opportunity to make the kind of changes that will not leave our kids and our grandkids with a huge debt and, in effect, say to them that they are going to be responsible for paying off that kind of debt, that now amounts to $5.7 trillion. And why would they be responsible for more debt? It is because this body and the President of the United States have found it to their political advantage to simply spend more and more money. At some time we are going to have to decide, as part of good public policy, how much taxes should be in this country, what is reasonable in terms of the percent of what a worker earns, should go for taxes. Right now, an average taxpayer, pays 41 percent of every dollar they earn in taxes. After we decide on a reasonable level of taxation, then we have got to prioritize spending. Part of that priority has got to make sure that we keep Social Security and Medicare solvent.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) make very good points. Agriculture is in a very precarious situation right now. Many farmers are facing bankruptcy; and of course, that is why it is so important that we do not let the provisions in the bankruptcy law expire in 5 days as they would under existing law. The question of whether this should be 3 months or 6 months or 9 months or permanent is a question, and I think everybody agrees that in the long run it should be permanent. Let me explain to my colleagues why we are going ahead with my bill that calls for 3 months. It is because the bankruptcy bill itself is moving through the House and the Senate right now. There are hopes from many parties that we will conclude a bankruptcy bill and have it signed into law within the next 3 months. There is a concern from some of the House Members and some of the Senators that if we start passing legislation such as the continuation of these provisions for family farmers, it will start a lot of the other parts of the bankruptcy law that is agreed to by everybody to come to the floor to get rid of that particular problem and make those solutions permanent. There is a hope that we can do everything and hopefully we will do it this year. Mr. Speaker, just a comment. As a farmer from Michigan, let me comment just for a minute on the seriousness of the plight facing American agriculture, the farmers and ranchers of this Nation. These are people that have lived most of their life getting up at sunrise and finishing work 12, 14 hours later at sunset. They have been called the backbone of our society because it has been the industriousness of hard-working family farmers that has allowed people to move off the farm and into manufacturing production that has made this country so great and so strong economically. We are looking at an agriculture that is faced with prices that are at 30-year lows in terms of the commodity prices they are receiving for many different reasons. We are just starting to develop new farm policy to try to help farmers. This is simply one of the many tools that we give to farmers, and the provisions of Chapter XII simply say to farmers they do not have to sell their tractor and their plow and their drag and their welder, and then try to pay off their debts. It says, look, they can keep some of that equipment and try to work it out themselves within a limited period of time. The provisions of this bill only apply to family farmers. Chapter XII of title XI of the Bankruptcy Code is only available to these kind of family farmers. Congress temporarily extended Chapter XII for 9 months. Now we are looking at another extension of 3 months. The logic is that a farmer, like anybody else, needs particular tools to survive. I am pleased that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and this body are taking action on this legislation today. With 5 days to go before expiration, time is very short. We need to get this over to the Senate, and we need to get it to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, agriculture continues to be in serious condition right now. It is the 3rd consecutive year of such hardship. Times are tough in farm country. While the rest of the economy is booming, American farmers and ranchers have not been invited to the party. Commodity prices are at record lows, export markets are weak, and no relief is expected any time soon. While the farm credit system is currently sound, there are some producers who just will not be able to make it in the short term. Bankruptcy filings by farmers have become regular occurrence. I have visited with a lot of farmers from my district. Many are as smart as most any entrepreneur of small business. Yet because of prices, even with their efforts to lay off workers and dramatically expand their working week, their family farms may not make it. Chapter 12 of the title 11 bankruptcy code is only available to family farmers. Last September, Congress temporarily extended chapter 12 for 9 months. Now we are looking at another extension because chapter 12 now is set to expire in five days, on July 1, 2000. H.R. 4718, will temporarily extend chapter 12 for another 3 months so that this critical option for America's family farmers does not expire. Chapter 12 allows family farmers the option to reorganize debt rather than having to liquidate when declaring bankruptcy. The logic is that a farmer, like anybody else that needs particular tools to survive, needs the temporary allowance to keep those farm tools. In this case, Chapter 12 allows a farmer to continue to have some of those tools of production in order to keep farming while they are reorganizing finances. I think it is important that these provisions only apply to a family farm. That is characterized under current law by a debt that does not exceed $1.5 million, 80 percent or more of the debt must be agricultural, and users of Chapter 12 must have over 50 percent of their individual gross income from agriculture and their farming operation. I am pleased that Chairman Gekas and this body is taking action on this legislation today. With five days to go before expiration, time is very short. Pending bankruptcy legislation (H.R. 833) now in conference between the House and Senate will make chapter 12 permanent. We hear that this bill could come to the floor any week. However, issues such as abortion and other issues are delaying any final resolve of the bankruptcy bill. Until enactment of that legislation, H.R. 4718 is necessary to extend the law beyond July 1st, its current expiration date. This legislation is needed to assure producers that this risk management tool is available to them. Again, I thank both sides of the aisle and the chairman for moving ahead.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on the first 12 amendments we did very well on a lot of debate, and that is part of my concern. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but just to express my frustration of hearing so much time spent on nongermane amendments and my amendment that is now being allocated 10 minutes is an amendment that allows the Bureau of Economic Analysis, one of the few areas that Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Fed, has said publicly he thinks needs more funding. The ranking member of the Committee on the Budget has indicated that he thinks the BEA needs more funding. This will preclude that kind of testimony. Two of the Republican Members that have been suggested as possible chairman of the Committee on the Budget have indicated their interest in expanding the allocation for BEA, and they will not have that opportunity at 4 p.m. Monday. I am concerned again like the ranking member suggested that early amendments utilize so much of the time that cannot be considered any more crucial, any more important or any more dynamic as we move ahead with this budget. I simply express my concern on the decisions and the frustration on the majority leader's part and on the ranking member's part.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this House should not go on record as taking these kinds of funds out of these other important programs, and I would relate to just one, the BEA, the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce. This amendment would reduce its funds by almost 20 percent. Chairman Alan Greenspan rarely goes on public record of suggesting increased funding for any agency. In the BEA, as he has suggested, for the importance of that statistical calculation, we need more money in that agency. Already we have shortchanged, we have reduced the funding for that agency in the last few years by a real 12 percent. This amendment would take an additional 20 percent out of their funds, that is the basis of over a $100 billion in revenue sharing. It is the basis of the projections of OMB and CBO. We should not go on record of this kind of drastic reduction in these kinds of agencies.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a good start. We need to remind ourselves that simply not spending the money does not fix the solvency problem of Social Security or fix the solvency problem of Medicare. Mostly because of demographics, the actuaries have determined that both of these programs are going broke, the challenge is, where do we get that money to keep the commitment we have made to seniors that those promised benefits are going to be there. I think all Members can support this kind of legislation that encourages not spending any of the Social Security or Medicare surplus money on other government programs. This commitment is going to help some with the huge problem of keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent. I was hoping in this presidential election that we could come debate real specifics in terms of how we are going to save Social Security and Medicare. Sadly, it would be demagogued because it is so easy to scare the seniors that depend on these programs. This President, I think, had a unique opportunity to lead us, in the last three years to keep Social Security solvent forever. That did not happen, and now we are hoping that the next President will do that. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for moving us ahead, at least in the effort to encourage this Congress to have some fiscal responsibility, fiscal discipline, of not using the Social Security surplus or the H I trust fund surplus for either tax cuts or for spending on other government programs. That is good. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I have introduced legislation that provides a sequester if we were to use either of these trust fund surpluses for either of those purposes. So anybody that would like to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 4694, I welcome their cosponsorship. Let us pass Mr. Herger's bill. Let us make it unanimous, and let us have the courage and fiscal discipline we need to save these two important programs.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was 1985 that we passed the law to take Social Security off budget; and as everybody is aware, even with that designation, we continued to spend the Social Security surplus. So it would seem to me, I would say to the gentleman, it is not how the gentleman might construct it where we put these numbers, but it is the final decision whether we spend the money or not.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from New York proposes to reduce funding for the National Science Foundation by $18 million in order to increase funding at the Department of Housing and Urban Development by the same amount. This is a remarkably short-sighted idea. This appropriations bill adds $4 billion to HUD's already $25.8 billion budget for FY2000--that's an increase that represents more than NSF's total budget. To this increase, the gentleman wishes to add $18 million raided from NSF's significantly smaller appropriation. This House has continually recognized the important role NSF and basic research have played in our Nation's economic and technological development. Research funded by NSF, including research at the poles, has led to the development of new pharmaceuticals and new diagnostic and therapeutic tools that have preserved and protected the health of people worldwide. Our understanding of viruses, of pathogens, of carcinogens, has been aided immeasurably by the type of basic research NSF enables. This is a fact not lost on the current Administration, which pointed out in a press release last week that cuts to NSF will put at risk ``longer, healthier lives for all Americans.'' While I commend my colleague for the intent of his amendment, I must take issue with its effect. Moving this funding from a well-run agency like NSF to one with a history of mismanagement like HUD sends the wrong message to all federal agencies. It's worth noting a GAO report issued last summer taking HUD to task for its management deficiencies. The report noted significant weaknesses in internal control, unreliable information and financial management systems, organizational deficiencies, and staff without proper skills. GAO concluded that ``HUD's programs are a high-risk area'' based on ``the status of [these] four serious, long-standing Department-wide management deficiencies that, taken together, have placed the integrity and accountability of HUD's programs at high risk since 1994.'' In that light perhaps the gentleman should look within HUD's $30 billion appropriation to find the offsets his amendment requires, rather than force cuts in the Nation's premier science agency. I urge the House to reject this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the Members from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), suggested the need for more NSF funding, the National Science Foundation. I agree. Yet one of the Members from your side of the aisle is suggesting that we take money, additional money out of NSF and put it into HUD. Hopefully in this appropriation bill, before it is finished, we can find more money to accommodate basic research. Basic research in this country has been instrumental in creating products and increasing our competitive position. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, I introduced H.R. 4500 that authorizes a 17 percent increase in NSF funding. Let us not shortchange basic research that has served us so well. Let us make sure we do not take more money out of the NSF funding, and let us look for additional funding to help make sure that the basic research that has helped make this country great, that has been vital to increasing our productivity, continues as one of our priorities.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Sarah Ziegler, winner of the 2000 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Sarah is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. Sarah is an exceptional student at Litchfield High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Sarah has received numerous awards for her achievements in academics as well as her involvement in athletics. Outside of school, she is an active member of the Hillsdale County Community Foundation as well as her community church. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Sarah Ziegler for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.