Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I voted for this legislation when it was up for a House vote, and it failed to get the appropriate number of votes. I think it is a shame that there was a disagreement, maybe, on both sides with the suggestion that there be a 24-hour waiting period, a concern somewhat about whether 24 hours was legitimate. I called the FBI, and I said, well, what happens in the current 3-day waiting period when you find afterwards that some individual has lied on the application plus taken possession of the gun? They said, well, there were many of those, something like 5,000 last year that they found out after the 3-day waiting period that they committed, really, two felonies. They committed one felony on lying on the application and they committed another felony by taking possession of that gun when they were prior-convicted felons. I said, well, what happens then? They said, well, in all except a few cases, because they had committed a double felony, we went after them aggressively. We called the ATF. We called local law enforcement. We not only caught and started prosecuting most all of those individuals that we found out later had violated two laws, really, but we confiscated the weapons. So it seems to me that, in the question of 24 hours, if somehow we have that good of record in terms of ATF and FBI and local law enforcement going after these individuals now that have committed two felonies, that there is some advantage in coming to some kind of an agreement that is reasonable to help assure that we close this loophole at gun shows and simply do not let it go on for partisan reasons.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, when we drafted the Contract with America in 1994, we promised to conduct public audits of the House books and records, but in 1995 PricewaterhouseCoopers could not even render an opinion. The records, and I should say the lack of records, were deplorable. Millions of dollars were tracked on handwritten ledgers with numbers scratched out and written in different ink colors. Supplies and equipment were purchased without competitive bidding. There was $14 million in over-budget spending. There were problems with the post office and the House bank. After a great deal of work to clean up the mess and start keeping records under the guidelines of general accounting principles, this fall we received a totally clean bill of financial health. For the first time ever, the House books are clean, open to the public, and follow those principles. We are committed to the highest standards of integrity and full accountability to taxpayers, including balancing the budget without using the Social Security trust fund surplus.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, back in 1992, Congress passed legislation to allow and establish a national memorial for fallen firefighters. Yesterday up in Emmitsburg, Maryland, we had such a ceremony. This past year, 95 firefighters in the United States lost their lives in the line of duty. I think this Congress, this Nation, owes these individuals, the Americans that have fallen in the line of duty before them and certainly every first responder in this country, a debt of gratitude, a vote of thanks. Protecting public safety and public property is a brave calling. We certainly should as a Congress thank those individuals for the great job they did. Yesterday up in Emmitsburg it was a day of remembrance but it was also a day of celebration, because these individuals contributed so much in the spirit of honor and duty. I am a strong believer that everyone should be a supporter of their community, should try in some way to make their individual communities a little bit better by contributing, by being in public service, by being on the fund-raising committee, contributing an effort to help others when they need help. It seems to me that cynicism has just spread too far across this country and there are too many that now consider duty and honor to be just words, relics of the past. But these men and women, our first responders, our police, and firemen especially in yesterday's dedication, they believed in duty, they believed in commitment, they believed in community. And certainly these qualities in first responders across the Nation deserve more support from this Congress. Now, we call them first responders because, and I will give a couple of examples. When we turned on our television last spring to the terrifying situation at Columbine High School, who did we see on that television set? It was the first responders that got there first. The firefighters were there first. Whether it is wildfires or earthquakes or tornadoes or fires of unimaginable danger and stress, or when it is a beloved kitten going up a tree or when you need help for a fund- raising in the community, it is these firefighters that are there, they are willing to make the difference, they are willing to give their time and the effort. We have got 32,000 fire departments in the United States. We have got 103 million first responders. Eighty percent of those first responders are volunteers, volunteers that go and risk their lives to protect lives and safety and support their community. I think they embody the beliefs of the founders of our country who were deeply committed to the idea that the individual had an obligation to the community, that our country needed its domestic defenders, our firefighters, our first responders, every bit as much as it needed a national defense. Our thanks certainly should go out not only to these firefighters but their loved ones who experienced the tremendous effort, the sacrifice that these firefighters have made for their communities. Stories where firefighters made the difference are in almost every home and every community. They are certainly in my home where the firefighters came to my farm and saved not only property but the lives of a lot of my cattle on that farm. As far as I am concerned, they are the champions we can never fully thank, and speeches like this speech tonight or speeches up in Emmitsburg never are going to be adequate enough to thank those individuals that made that kind of sacrifice. If there is any lesson that we can take, Mr. Speaker, as Americans from those in our communities that contribute so much, to make sure that we also make an effort to their memory to try to do our duty in helping others, in helping our community, in trying to do something to make our communities better and help the lives of the people that we know a little better, that is what we should do.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it was simply a mistake. They made a mistake on the crop insurance. They put the wrong price down. And who ended up suffering, of course, is our farmers that bought that insurance with the mistake incorporated in that contract. So it does need to be corrected.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999. Mr. Chairman, American agriculture is in a serious situation right now. While the rest of the economy is booming, American farmers and ranchers are hurting and asking for our help. Commodity prices are at record lows, export markets are weak, and no relief is expected any time soon. This crop insurance bill helps protect farmers against low commodity prices and farm income by making insurance levels more affordable for crop losses, declining prices and total farm revenue loss. Under the current crop insurance program, my farmers in Michigan have very little incentive to purchase any level of insurance beyond the CAT coverage. It doesn't pay off for them to do so. In Michigan, like a lot of areas in the United States, we get hit by a disaster about every 10 years. They don't need sunshine insurance. One of my amendments adopted in the Agriculture Committee helps correct this problem. This provision adjusts the premium farmers pay by area according to frequency of disaster. Another important provision this bill contains regards revenue coverage. Plans will be developed designed to enable producers to take maximum advantage of fluctuations in market prices which will maximize revenue from the sale of a crop. H.R. 2559 increases premium assistance to farmers at every coverage level so they can protect more of what they produce. This is why I am a cosponsor of this bill. Farmers will have across-the-board premium cuts. The little money farmers have in their pockets will stay there and not be spent on overpriced premiums. I urge all my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 2559.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, American agriculture is in a very serious situation right now. While the rest of the economy is experiencing strong profits and strong employment and good income, farmers are at the lowest level of net profits that they have been in many years. That comes from two consequences: One is the natural disaster of the weather that for a lot of farmers has substantially reduced their yields all the way to almost zero in some cases; and the other problem is the commodity prices. The commodity prices are the lowest, record low commodity prices. For example, in soybeans, lower price than there has been in soybeans in 30 years, corn, rice, cotton, livestock production especially in the area of hog production, the kind of commodity prices that are devastating farmers. I spoke last week to a fourth-generation hog producer in my area of Michigan, where his great grandfather and his grandfather and his father all were successful in running that operation. Now he is threatened with bankruptcy, a very serious situation. But it is not just the farmers. It is not just the 1.5 percent of our population in this country that are out there on the farm working their 16 hours a day or 18 hours a day. It is also the consumers. Because if we do not move ahead with this kind of legislation, if we do not move ahead in ways that we help assure that our farmers in America are not put at a competitive disadvantage with farmers in other countries because of how those other countries are subsidizing their farmers plus how they are keeping our products out of their markets, then we are going to lose our agriculture industry in this country. I think we have got to be very conscious of what the consequences are of losing our ability to produce food and fiber in this country for our consumers. I think it deserves a reminder that the American public buys food at a lower percentage of their take-home income and buy the highest quality food in the world. And so we need to maintain those kind of provisions for the consumers in our country. That is why everybody in this Chamber needs to be concerned with the future of agriculture. This bill moves us along the route of helping assure that our farmers can survive. As I met with my farmers in Michigan, they told me that it is silly for them to buy this crop insurance because they only have a disaster once every 14 years, or 16 years, or 18 years. And so the higher priced premium that has been charged to accommodate all areas of the country, even those areas, of course, with the higher frequency of disaster, makes it not worthwhile for our farmers to buy that kind of insurance. So the amendment that the committee adopted and those that are in this bill account in two ways to look at premiums based on how often there are disasters in particular regions, and to change those premiums to reflect the frequency of those disasters. Also, we incorporated language in this bill that says that we will work on developing insurance that has a more targeted consideration of the price of the commodity. Right now this bill is mostly sunshine insurance, or natural disaster insurance, with a small provision on helping assure that the price is either in the winter months or in the fall months, there is that option of the higher price. But this bill says to look and explore other avenues to add to the tools that a farmer has to be risk management tools to help assure that they can run their business the way anybody else runs their business. And as we continue to be in a free market system, as we continue to let the marketplace help influence that farmer on how much of what crop to plant, this kind of insurance help from the Federal Government is reasonable and it is necessary.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified, open rule. It is a good rule. It allows us to discuss federal agricultural policy as we deal with dramatic changes in agriculture. Last February, I served on the Committee on the Budget as well as the Committee on Agriculture, and last February we decided in the Committee on the Budget that we were going to include in the budget $6 billion from the year 2001 to 2004. The Budget Resolution funding would be to help farmers adjust to the challenges of survival that Americans now face. The 1996 Freedom to Farm legislation provides a phaseout of the old Government programs. The challenges now facing farmers, include subsidies to farmers in other countries that put our farmers at a disadvantage, reduced exports and Washington's lack of efforts to be more aggressive in expanding our trade. Certainly the greatest challenge this year are record-low prices that farmers receive for their commodities. So farmers today are receiving record low prices. For example, soybean price is the lowest in the last 30 years. Corn lower than the last 15 years. This bill helps farmers adjust. What we are suggesting in this legislation is that insurance be more available to farmers that would add to their tools of reducing risk. This insurance covers two areas: One, insurance for some commodity price protection. Secondly, is what I call sunshine insurance, insurance to cover those farmers against loss in case of natural disasters. I think the challenge before us, as we revisit federal agricultural policy is how do we make sure that we keep a strong agricultural industry in the United States? If consumers want to continue with the high quality, low cost that they now pay for food in this country, if we want to continue to know the food is safe because we know how it was produced, then we are going to have to save and maintain and make sure we keep strong, stable agriculture in the United States. We'll examine some other ways that we can help farmers in the future years. Crop insurance deserves taxpayer support because we do not know what the risks are, because those people that are selling that insurance do not have the experience. It is appropriate, it is proper, it is necessary that government support some of those premiums as we get more experience as we encourage farmers to take out crop insurance in the new freedom to farm environment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we have significant challenges before this legislature, possibly more than any of the 7 years that I have served in Congress. That challenge is to hold the line on spending. The question before this body is should we spend the Social Security surplus money for other government programs. And, Mr. Speaker, everybody should understand that when Congress spends more money, most often they are more likely to be reelected. They take home pork barrel projects, they do more things for more people with taxpayers' money, and they end up on the front page of the paper or end up on television cutting the ribbons; and so part of the problem is that there is a lot of Members of Congress supported by a lot of bureaucrats that work within Federal Government, all of whom would very much like to spend more money and have a bigger government. The challenge facing us this year is a budget resolution decision not to spend the Social Security surplus funds coming in. We are now approaching the new fiscal year. Day after tomorrow the new fiscal year starts for the United States Government. In that budget we now anticipate $148 billion coming in surplus from the FICA tax, from the Social Security tax. We now estimate approximately $14 billion coming in surplus from the on- budget surplus or, if you will, from the income tax. In our budget resolution we said we were not going to spend the Social Security surplus. We passed what was called a lockbox bill on the floor that says that we are going to put all of the Social Security surplus into a lockbox and not use it for anything except Social Security. Now we have got a lot of individuals, including the President, suggesting that we should have more spending; but everybody needs to understand that more spending means that we use the Social Security surplus money. The President suggested that we take 66 percent of the Social Security surplus and set that aside and do not spend it, but that we go ahead and we spend one-third of the Social Security surplus. This side of the aisle, the Republicans, said, no, let us try to do a little better than that, let us put a hundred percent of the Social Security surplus, trust fund surplus, aside and make sure that we do not spend it for other government programs. I mean it is tough. We have not done this before. It would be history making if we are able to do this. Before the Republicans took the majority in 1995, for the 40 years before that the Democrats had the majority in this chamber for most every one of those years. Any time there was a surplus coming in from Social Security, it was spent for other government programs. I chair a bipartisan task force of the Committee on the Budget on Social Security. In those hearings we learned that the Social Security Administration may be very well underestimating life span, especially how long an individual is expected to live after they reach the age of 65. Futurist medical experts were guessing that within 25 years anybody that wanted to live to be a hundred years old could make that decision to do so, and they guess that maybe within 35 years anybody that wanted to live to be 120 years old, it was within a realistic realm of possibility that they could live that long, Mr. Speaker. See the huge consequences this will mean for any pension programs, for any government program, whether it is Social Security or Medicare or whether it is Medicaid with a huge cost, increasing cost, of nursing home care if individuals are going to live that long, because what we are faced with is a declining number of workers paying their tax in that immediately is spent out in benefits. I mean Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program ever since it started in 1935. In other words, current workers pay in their taxes to pay the benefits of current retirees. When we started in 1935 and up through the 1940s, we had about 41 people working, paying in their taxes, for every one retiree. Today there is three people working paying in their taxes for every one retiree. By 2030 we are expecting that there is only going to be two people working. That means that those two people have to earn enough to provide for their families plus one retiree. Huge challenges. Let us be careful. Let us rededicate ourselves not to spend the Social Security surplus. It is a good start.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed with my 5-minute special order at this time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, following up on the previous speaker, I would just like to suggest that since this administration took office, the public debt has increased $1.5 trillion, but that is not just the President; that is Congress and the President who control borrowing and spending. We have decided to keep on borrowing and spending. So every year we have increased the public debt of our federal government. To suggest that tax increases result in a stronger economy would be contrary to what almost every economist says. The previous speaker is correct--the 1993 largest tax increase in history was passed by Congress and the President without a single Republican vote. I am going to send a copy of our debt history out as a ``dear colleague'' so that everybody is fully aware of what is happening to our public debt. We now owe roughly $5.6 trillion. Ten years ago, it was half that amount. It seems important to me that we understand that we have three parts of our public debt. One is what I call Wall Street debt, about $3.6 trillion. One is Social Security debt, approaching $1 trillion, and then the other 122 trust funds and intergovernment transfers, which is another $1.2 trillion. We cannot pretend to pay down one part of the debt without considering what we are doing to the total debt of this country. It is all debt. It all has to be paid back, if not by us, by our kids and grandchildren.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is lock in our intestinal fortitude not to spend the Social Security surplus. As Democrats all vote for this resolution, we would hope they also would lock in their intestinal fortitude not to spend Social Security money. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) had suggested, until the Republicans took the majority in 1995, almost every one of those 40 years that Democrats had control before that time, the Social Security surplus was spent on other government programs. That raises a tremendous problem of, not only the indebtedness, but the problem of interest and the problem of paying it back and ultimately the solvency of Social Security. Democrats have to stop criticizing Republicans for not spending enough money, not spending enough money on water, not spending enough money on Medicare, salaries, pork, or other government programs. That is what is happening. The President has suggested that we spend $120 billion more next year. That was in his budget. So somehow we are going to have to have the guts, the fortitude to live within our budget without spending the Social Security surplus. I would hope both sides would work together to do that.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the reason that the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Chambliss) are cosponsoring this bill is because together we feel it is very important, especially at this time, with agriculture facing up to some very difficult challenges. Mr. Speaker, American agriculture is in a serious situation right now. Times are tough in farm country. While the rest of the economy is booming, American farmers and ranchers have been left out. 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 many producers who just will not be able to make ends meet and are going to be forced into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy filing by farmers has become too regular an occurrence. I visited last week with a hog producer from my district. He is the fourth generation on that farm, as smart as most any entrepreneur that I have known. Yet, because of prices, even with his business-like efforts to lay off workers, to increase his hours that he spends per week on that farm, he is still challenged as to whether he can survive on that farm. Again, fourth generation. That means his great- grandfather, his grandfather, his dad, all were able to preserve that farm, and now he is challenged, simply because we have a system of international competition that has resulted in the very low commodity prices. Chapter 12 of title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is only available, I would like to point out, to family farmers. Chapter 12 is now set to expire, as the gentlewoman suggested, in three days, on September 30. H.R. 2942, as amended, will temporarily extend Chapter 12 for another 3 months so that this critical option for America's family farmers does not expire. Mr. Speaker, Chapter 12 allows family farmers the option to reorganize debt rather than having to liquidate when declaring bankruptcy. The logic is that a farmer should not be forced to sell his tractor and his plow and his planter and his tools of production when he is reorganizing, trying to make sure that he is paying off those debts, because if we force him to sell those tools of production, then we have almost taken away any possible opportunity for him to reorganize and pay his debts. I am very pleased that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) and this body is taking action on this legislation today. With three days to go before expiration, time is very short. Senator Grassley and other Senators are aggressively pursuing this effort over in the Senate and moving ahead on this legislation. I realize that many of us would prefer to see Chapter 12 extended permanently. I trust that as the general bankruptcy reform is debated, a permanent fix for Chapter 12 is going to be accomplished, because that is what is in the bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) and the committee and this body sent over to the Senate. This legislation is needed to assure producers that this risk management tool is available. Again, I thank both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol Building, and especially the chairman for moving ahead on this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Sojourner Truth Institute for their hard work and dedication to the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which is being unveiled in Battle Creek, Michigan on Saturday, September 25, 1999. Deserving recognition for this historic event are monument sculptor Tina Allen, Institute Administrator Michael Evans, Dr. Velma Laws-Clay and the entire Monument Steering Committee for the vision of turning an idea into a reality. The monument will stand to commemorate Sojourner Truth's crusade for the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and human rights for all. Sojourner Truth is one of Battle Creek's greatest citizens and her impact on American history is immeasurable. She stood as a strong voice for the nation's ideals of freedom and equality at a time of great conflict. She was an abolitionist and an outspoken leader for women's rights. ``Today I have the right to speak out in public and be as successful as I choose to be because she was a pioneer for the rights of women and others'', said Dr. Laws-Clay. The Sojourner Truth Institute, with the proud support of the entire Battle Creek community, will sponsor a weekend-long celebration culminating with the unveiling of sculptor Tina Allen's 12-foot tall bronze statue of Sojourner Truth in Battle Creek's new Monument Park. ``The intention was to provide a place where visitors and residents of the city can learn about what she really meant to the city of Battle Creek and bring the city's history to an even larger audience. It is also a very appropriate welcome at the gateway of our city'', said Michael Evans. I wish to thank everyone involved in bringing this monument to life and continuing the legacy of Sojourner Truth, who is one of the greatest human rights activists in this nation's history. I am honored to represent a city with such character and determination. The work of the Sojourner Truth Institute will ensure that Battle Creek and America long remembers Sojourner Truth's message of freedom and I commend the Institute's vision and dedication.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, things are seldom what they seem. I mean everybody talking from both sides of the aisle wants to help our dairy farmers. Sometimes we see a difference between different areas of the country. That is why we argue about 1A and 1B. On this amendment I would like to suggest that it may be well intentioned but what it does in effect is to prohibit co-ops from subtracting their cost of doing business as a co-op from the proceed of total co-op milk sales and then take what is left and distribute it to farmers. So when the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) suggests we should have an amendment that forces every co-op to pay the Federal order price, then the question must be asked: How are the co-ops going to manage their affairs; how are they going to pay for the expenses of that cooperative? The effect on co-ops that do not enjoy an over-order price, (those co-ops that have not been able to negotiate a higher price than the Federal order price), would be to disallow the co-op from paying for their cost of doing business from milk sale receipts. So by passing this amendment, we are going to put some co-ops out of business or otherwise jeopardize the co-op operation. The way it has been working for the last 40 years is to allow these co-ops to subtract their cost of doing business, and then divide up what is left to their members. It is a reasonable way for these co-ops to continue to operate efficiently. I hope we vote down the amendment and keep co-ops strong.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am a dairy farmer from Michigan. I am supportive of H.R. 1402. It implements one of USDA's proposals known as Option 1A. Briefly, let me try to explain to our nondairy Members roughly what we are talking about. We started pricing milk back in 1937 because there was unfair bargaining between dairy farmers and the processors of milk. The processors of milk had the bargaining advantage and could rip off those dairy farmers simply because milk is perishable and is lost if not purchased. They could do anything they wanted to with you because your milk will spoil if not picked up, so the dairy processor had monopoly power over the individual dairy farmer. So government became involved in pricing milk. It is interesting that today there are still about 200 dairy farmers producers for every one processor as there was in 1937, so some pricing structure needs to stay in place if we are to continue producing an adequate supply of milk in this country. These two changes USDA came up were their two top proposals on how to involve the government; namely, Option 1A and Option 1B. Option 1A has less change from the current system; Option 1B has a more dramatic change. But I would suggest to Members, there are already very dramatic changes that include going from 31 milk marketing orders to 11 orders in this country, Also both proposals dramatically change the way we price milk and change the way we classify milk. It is very important, I think, in making this transition that we go with the less drastic change that is Option 1A. Members ask why roughly 87 percent of our milk is sold through cooperatives. It is because dairy farmers are over the barrel and do not have the ability to bargain effectively as individuals. They do have cooperative bargaining rights that will be helped with the passage of this bill. I think it is very important that we pass this bill and go with Option 1A.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me start out by saying if one supports co-ops, and most all of the dairy farmers in this country sell their milk through co-ops, then you should support the Stenholm-Pombo amendment. Eighty-seven percent of our milk in this country is sold through the cooperative system. The reason buyers of milk from the farmers would like us to vote down the Stenholm-Pombo amendment is simply because they can undercut the effectiveness of the cooperative to help farmers. What this amendment helps correct is an amendment passed in committee on a vote of 20 to 23, with 6 Members absent. A very close vote in committee. Some were convinced by the philosophical debate that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) puts forward. It sounds good on the surface but what it does, is undercut the effectiveness of the co-ops by letting the manufacturers and the purchasers of the milk go around the co-op, to buy milk directly from the farmers. Thus they have better negotiating power with the co-op, by getting several farmers to leave the co-op and sell directly to the dairy by promises of benefits. A dairy that does not have to deal directly with the co-op for a significant amount of milk increases their bargaining power and reduces the co-op's ability to serve the majority of the people that they represent in getting a fair price for their milk. Help keep farmer cooperatives strong and vote against the Dooley secondary amendment and for Pombo-Stenholm.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, let's concentrate on constituent interests, not special interests. As the great political reporter Theodore White wrote, ``the flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.'' I haven't accepted PAC contributions since I first ran for the Michigan state senate in 1982. Although I knew I would always vote the way I felt was right regardless of who donated to my campaign, I also knew that it was equally important that my constituents had no doubts about how much PAC lobbyists might be influencing my decisions. I have reintroduced my bill from the 105th Congress, the PAC Limitation Act, which would do the following: Ban PACs from donating to individual Congressional campaigns. Require that Congressional candidates raise 50% or more of their contributions from individual donors who reside within their district. Limit how much and how often individuals can make soft money contributions to political party organizations. Require that TV, radio and cable stations report the placement of issue ads so that there will be full disclosure. Require labor organizations to obtain the written permission of members before using any dues or fees for political purposes. Special interests with their organized lobbying and their millions of dollars of PAC persusion money have gained undue influence in Congress. It is time to start dismantling that influence. This legislation moves the process ahead.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced legislation that actually bans PAC money from donating to individual congressional campaigns and requires that congressional candidates raise 50 percent of the money from within their own legislative district. Having a requirement that 50% of contributions for a Member of Congress come from the State is reasonable. It moves us in the right direction, and it helps make sure that constituents are going to be represented, not special interests. Mr. Chairman, let's concentrate on constituent interests, not special interests. As the great political reporter Theodore White wrote, ``The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.'' I haven't accepted PAC contributions since I first ran for the Michigan state senate in 1982. Although I knew I would always vote the way I felt was right regardless of who donated to my campaign, I also knew that it was equally important that my constituents had no doubts about how much PAC lobbyists might be influencing my decisions.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Just to point out the percentages again, we had $25 million last year. The request was for $36 million. That was a 40 percent increase. We ended up with $5 million less than that. It seems that using percentages does not really reflect the contribution of the Federal Government to what is a very huge, serious contribution; again, 34,000 fire departments, over 1.2 million first responders, 80 percent of whom are volunteers, and to implement the blue ribbon committee we need that money.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to return to page 64 for consideration of this amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution, the authorization bill, H.R. 1550, and the FEMA director, James Lee Witt, all suggested that a $5 million appropriation to the Fire Administration be authorized in order to implement certain changes in the Fire Administration. I would like to suggest to my colleagues that this is a compromise. The appropriators took out the $5 million. This amendment suggests that we move ahead with $2.5 million to implement these changes in the Fire Administration. The director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, has said at least with the $2.5 million they can move ahead and start making some changes necessary to help the first responders in this country. We have 34,000 fire departments in this country. We have had very little support from the Federal Government. It has been suggested that, after all, it is already in this appropriation bill. There is a 20 percent increase in funding. The 20 percent is an increase from last year's $25 million to this year's $31 million, but they took out the $5 million for this special project. Compare this authorization with what we have given law enforcement; for example, $1 billion for bulletproof vests in 1 year. What are we doing for our first responders? We make these first responders, 80 percent of whom are volunteers, do without any kind of support. We are now challenged in every community, in every township, in every hamlet, in every village of continuing to encourage these volunteers to perform the kinds of public service that they have been performing. Let us make some changes, and let us start giving these men and women a little support from Washington, D.C. Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration has had a notable impact on communities across the country. Between 1986 and 1995, for example, fire deaths decreased 30 percent and the adjusted dollar losses associated with the fires decreased by 13 percent. Much of this decrease can be traced to research sponsored by the United States Fire Administration. Earlier I had mentioned $1 billion to law enforcement for deaths. Last year we had about 200 deaths of law enforcement officers performing their duties. Last year we had 100 deaths of first responders, firemen trying to do their duty, and again, 80 percent of those individuals are volunteers, with little or no support. We are talking about $2.5 billion. The $5 million was taken out. We are now talking about $2.5 million, at least starting down this road to help these first responders. Losses from fire, I would call to the Members' attention, remain unacceptably high. During the period 1986 to 1995 period, an average of 2.1 million fires have been reported annually, and fires cost an average of 5,000 civilian deaths, 25,000 injuries, and $9.6 billion in losses each year. Moreover, the United States has one of the highest fire death rates in the industrialized world, 15.6 deaths per million in population, higher than Australia, Japan, western Europe. Mr. Chairman, we can and we must do better. I think this is a very modest request to move ahead with what needs to happen in the U.S. Fire Administration for them to do a better job servicing the 34,000 fire departments in our communities and the 1.2 million first responders that are trying to help their communities in protecting the environment, protecting from loss of life, protecting from loss of property. A recent report by the blue ribbon panel made up of representatives of the fire service community spoke of a broken covenant between the Federal fire programs and the people and institutions they were created to serve. They listed 34 recommendations to improve the United States Fire Administration. At the top of the list was additional funding. This is a serious and earnest effort on the part of these stakeholders to bring about a positive change for the Fire Administration. Mr. Chairman, the budget, the attorneys team Bill H.R. 155, and FEMA Director James Lee Wolf all suggested a $5 million appropriation to implement certain changes. Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration has had a notable impact on communities cross the country. Between 1986 and 1995, for example, fire deaths decreased 30 percent, and the adjusted dollar loss associated with fire decreased 13 percent. Much of this decrease can be traced to research sponsored by USFA that led to affordable smoke detectors. Nevertheless, losses from fire remain unacceptably high. Over the same 1986 to 1995 period, an average of 2.1 million fires were reported annually, and fires caused an average of 5,100 civilians deaths, 25,000 injuries, and $9.6 billion in losses each year. Moreover, the United States has one of the highest fire death rates in the industrialized world--15.6 deaths per million in population--higher than in Australia, Japan, and most of Western Europe. Mr. Chairman, we can and must do better, both for our citizens and for the firefighters who regularly put their lives on the line--80 percent of whom serve as volunteers. in an age where the word ``hero'' has been debased, firefighters still command the respect and thanks of the communities they serve, and rightly so. About 100 lose their lives every year in duty-related incidents. However, a recent report by the Blue Ribbon Panel, made up of representatives of the fire-services community, spoke of a ``broken covenant between the federal fire programs and the people and institutions they were created to serve.'' They listed 34 recommendations to improve the United States Fire Administration. At the top of their list was additional funding. This is a serious and earnest effort on the part of these stakeholders to bring about positive change--to increase funding for the USFA while at the same time hold it accountable for its own performance. The authorization that we passed overwhelmingly in this House provided this funding. It also required the USFA to prepare a five-year plan on how the funding will be spent. It channeled new funding into the National Fire Academy for counterterrorism training for first responders and called for a review of National Fire Academy courses to ensure that they are up-to-date and complement, not duplicate, courses of instruction offered elsewhere. This amendment restores the $2.5 million out of the $5 million requested necessary to achieve these goals. It makes funding available to USFA through the FEMA ``Emergency Management Planning and Assistance'' account. It offsets this spending through a decrease in funding for the environmental protection Agency's ``Environmental Programs and Management'' account--a $1.8 billion account filled with earmarked programs not requested by the EPA. As Chairman of the Basic Research Subcommittee, it's important to me that we spend money on projects that meet the standards of competition and peer-review. A sum of less than \2/10\ of one percent from this account is reasonable to help this country's first responders. Mr. Chairman, by funding the United States Fire Administration, this amendment has the potential of saving countless numbers of lives, significantly reducing physical injuries and decreasing the dollar amount of damages caused by fire and other forms of disasters. I would personally like to thank everyone from the fire service who has offered their support to me throughout this budget process. But more importantly, I would like to thank all 1.2 million first responders for their dedication and commitment to duty, and offer my best wishes for their continued success and safety. I ask for your support on this amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I think I have exciting news, regarding what we have accomplished in our Social Security Task Force. Our bipartisan Task Force has been working on Social Security and the possibility of a bipartisan agreement to move a solution ahead. Last year, I was asked to head up a task force on Social Security with Democrats and Republicans. That was officially started early this year as a task force of the Committee on the Budget. Republicans and Democrats, when we started the discussion were inclined to have little agreement. The good news is we have come up with 18 findings that the Republicans and Democrats have agreed on. Next week we will have a complete report of this task force effort. I am excited. Let us keep it in our minds. Let us not be nullified by the fact that we have a surplus and somehow that surplus is going to somehow fix Social Security. It does not.