Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for yielding to me just a second just, again, to make clear that, from that account, it is a $1.8 billion account, out of that $1.8 billion, roughly one-tenth of 1 percent we are asking be transferred to an area that can tremendously help environmental needs. So it is a very small portion of that $1.8 billion.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Staff tells me that it comes out of the NSF research that has already been cut $25 million. It does not come out of the Antarctic money.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Cutting research funding for the National Science Foundation on top of cuts already proposed in this appropriation I think is shortsighted no matter how noble the cause. The amendment would cut $10 million from the NSF, not from the Antarctic money in the NSF, but from the general fund of the NSF. It is an agency already facing a $25 million budget reduction. To continue the cuts further would jeopardize our commitment to scientific discovery and innovation, a commitment that has been crucial to maintaining and increasing our current prosperity and quality of life. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science, I have been able to learn firsthand of the benefits and the commitment to research that this country needs to make. I would like to share some examples with my colleagues. Working with NSF, a particular grant, researchers at Rice University have developed a new process for creating ultra porous ceramic materials. These materials could make membranes with pores measuring 1 to 2 nanometers, one one billionth of a meter, small enough to help medical researchers filter viruses or help chemical workers with new techniques to clean up hazardous waste. NSF funded researchers at Washington University in St. Louis have created nano-sized synthetic particles that could some day be the carriers of drugs or genes to help fight the battle against many diseases including cancer. So again, taking the money from NSF I think is not justified in this case. NSF funded-researchers at Yale University are using powerful computers to develop drugs that bind more strongly to target proteins making them more effective at lower dosages and reducing unwanted side effects. These drugs show promise in preventing transplanted organs from being rejected, keeping HIV infections in check, even stimulating nerve regrowth in spinal cord injuries. Researchers at my alma mater, Michigan State University, funded, in part, by NSF have identified a gene that helps control a plant's tolerance to cold weather. Using this knowledge, farmers, of course, can accomplish the growing of crops in many areas that we cannot grow crops today. Since the defense against cold is similar to the defense against drought, the potential is real in helping to feed a starving world in the years ahead. These are just a few examples of the types of projects that could be jeopardized by these cuts, so I ask the authors of this amendment to please consider other areas that they might argue that these funds are reasonable to transfer into the projects that they suggest. While I sympathize with the plight of those suffering from AIDS and admire my colleagues for their efforts to help, I believe this amendment is not the right solution. In fact, cutting funding at NSF will in the long run only hurt the very people we are trying to help. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, agriculture in this country has very serious problems. It is the second year in a row that we had low commodity prices. Profits for farmers are 30 percent below what they were just a couple of years ago. We can lose maybe 10 percent of our family farms this year. We have got to come up with some Federal help. We have got to come up with an emergency bill this year. It might be as high as $6 billion or $7 billion or $8 billion if we want farmers in this country to continue producing the highest quality, lowest priced food in the world. If we lose our farmers and become dependent on other countries, we will have serious problems. Other countries will be able to dictate price and quality. A couple things in the tax bill that the conferees approved yesterday that help farmers: estate tax relief so farmers do not have to sell their farms to pay taxes, above-the-line health deductions so farmers and other self-employed can be like everybody else and not have to pay taxes on what they pay for health insurance; an increase in the amount allowed for first-year depreciation so if farmers buy machinery, they can deduct it in the year of purchase rather than a depreciation schedule where the deduction is reduced by inflation; ``FARRM'' IRA accounts so, in good years, farmers can put some money aside as a reduction in income and pay taxes on it when they use it in future low- income years; AMT, doing away with it so farmers are not forced to pay taxes when there is no profit. Mr. Speaker, we need the tax relief for farmers. We need to help expand exports. We need to stop other countries from dumping their surplus on our markets. We need a better risk insurance program for crops, and we need an emergency supplemental. We need to help our farmers.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on the tax cut and on the debt reduction, we are interested in both. We developed a trigger last week when we passed our tax bill that accomplishes the assurance that we are going to pay down the debt. The Senate is putting in a provision in the tax bill that it sunsets after 10 years. Additionally, we are working on a new trigger that is based on revenues. It says, in effect, that, if the revenues are not there, we are not going to have these kinds of tax cuts. So the first portion that comes in from increased revenues would be to expand spending. The next portion would be to pay down the debt. What is left over from that would be additional tax cuts. Let me just give my colleagues a fact that is interesting in terms of the overzealous taxation. We are talking about doing away with 10 percent of the income tax. If we did away with all of the personal income tax, revenues coming into the Federal Government would still be greater, larger than they were in 1990. That is how fast government is growing. That is how we are sucking the taxes out of Americans' pockets. Let us leave more of that money in the pocket of the people that earned it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the President has announced the extension of Normal Trading Relations with the People's Republic of China. I support his decision because I believe that U.S. interests are best served by a stable and open China. However, most importantly, I believe that normal relations with China is the most effective way to convince them to end their human rights abuses and join the international community in support of democracy. We should demand that China abide by international trade and non- proliferation agreements, cooperate in regional and global peace- keeping security initiatives, and maintain and respect the human rights of the Chinese people. Our total trade and exports to China has dramatically expanded. The United States maintains a large agricultural trade surplus with China (including Hong Kong), our fourth largest agricultural market. U.S. agricultural exports to China reached almost $2.9 billion in 1998. In addition, engagement has produced significant breakthroughs in opening China's agricultural market. If the United States chose not to continue normal relations, we would be the loser. China will find other trade countries to replace the U.S. goods now sold to China. Should I become convinced that ending our trade with China would be more effective in changing their human rights abuses and help achieve U.S. interests, I would vote to do so.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the President has proposed that the Medicare program provide free drug prescription. Now anyone with a basic understanding of how markets work knows that the President's proposal will increase demand and ultimately drive up the price of prescription drugs. This in turn will cause insurance rates to rise for everyone who has prescription drug coverage and further worsen the burden of those who do not have drug coverage. As the price of drugs rise, Medicare's financial position will worsen, and this will lead to higher tax costs for everyone and pressure from the government to put price controls on prescription drugs. This will lead to shortages of prescription drugs and a slowdown in research for new and better drugs. Eventually bureaucrats in Washington will be telling seniors what prescription drugs they are going to be allowed to have. Now the President is proposing free prescription drugs because at first glance it appears to give seniors something for nothing. But he and his advisers know as well as I do the harm that it will do seniors and the rest of us. He is proposing this to play politics, to try to thwart tax cuts, and try to have a bigger, more powerful government.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make comments today on the importance of not only a tax reduction but a reduction in the Federal debt and the trigger that we imposed within the tax bill to help assure that both happen. America's tax burden is the highest in the history of the Republic, not only in nominal terms but in actual percentage of income. Our Government has grown so large that if we repeal the entire income tax today, the total income coming into the Federal Government would still be as large as it was just 10 years ago. If we did away with the total income tax, other revenue coming into the Federal Government would be as much as the total revenue in 1990. It is past time for Americans to receive some relief from their ever-expanding tax burdens. Now on the issue of debt. At the same time, our Nation's debt stands at 5 trillion, 600 billion dollars. The interest expense on the debt last fiscal year was larger than the entire Federal budget in 1972. Interest on the Federal debt last year was larger than the entire Federal budget in 1972. A reduction in the debt would reduce interest rates and encourage economic expansion. It would also reduce the chances that our kids are going to have to pay huge taxes to make up for the over indulgence of their parents and grandparents as we spend and spend a bigger and bigger Government. While the need for both tax reduction and debt reduction is obvious, a major difficulty facing Congress is the proper mix. Economists from the time of David Ricardo in the 19th century to today disagree on the relative effect of tax reduction and debt reduction on the economy. However, the important thing is to keep Government from turning into what Thomas Hobbes called a ``leviathan,'' an ever-hungry monster gobbling up the Nation's resources. Last week it became apparent that a conflict of opinion about the size of the tax cut relative to the debt reduction jeopardized the passage of any tax relief. It was at that point that I recalled experience that the State of Michigan has had in allowing both sides of an issue such as this to get their way. Back in 1983, I was part of an effort, a tax rate reduction, that we would gradually tie to a certain target to make sure that tax reduction occurred. This year in Michigan, we tied a tax cut to economic conditions in a manner nearly identical to what I proposed in this House last week. What I proposed and what the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall) proposed and what the past House passed was tax reduction tied to our efforts to reduce the debt. Specifically, income tax rate would be reduced gradually in stages over 10 years. But if the interest expense on the Federal debt is not less than the prior year's interest expense, then the next stage of the reduction would be postponed. The concept is that those who are afraid that tax cuts may lead to greater debt and, thus, greater interest expense would have an automatic hold on further tax cuts until interest expenses went down. Those who felt and predicted tax cuts are going to spur greater economic growth and, therefore, bring in more revenue and pay down that debt and, therefore, lower the interest rates would get the full tax cut proposed in the original bill. While the trigger is probably not the perfect trigger, it accomplished the goal of moving the process forward both on reducing the debt and reducing taxes. The concept of using a trigger to allow both sides of the issue to really put your money where the other person's mouth is is a concept of win-win. It may be crucial to the final passage of this bill that will be acceptable to the White House as well as this House as we review what comes out of conference committee. I will continue to work this week on perfecting the trigger mechanism since this House, the Senate, and the President must agree on the final outcome before it becomes law. Debt reduction is important to strengthen the economy and taking the pressure off our kids and grandkids, and tax reduction in a system that has the highest tax rates in history is in need very desperately of the kind of tax cuts that leaves money in the pockets of the people that earn it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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 and to include extraneous material on the subject of the special order today by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to also talk about where we go on the budget and also where we have been on this budget. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans were elected as a majority back in 1995. For almost every year before that, for the previous 40 years, the Democrat majority in this House used every cent of the Social Security surplus and spent it on other government programs. When Republicans came in, in 1995, we came in with the enthusiasm to try to make government more efficient. We said, look, there has to be a balanced budget, and so we started cutting back on spending. We actually had a rescission bill. We started our session in January of 1995; but already, because we operate on a fiscal year, we had gone through the first one quarter of the budget year. But, still, with three-quarters left, we decided to cut down on the spending authorized for the rest of that year. We were successful, and we held the line on increased spending. The following year, with a great deal of effort and dedication, but also controversy, we did the same thing, because we were dedicated to the proposition that we should have a balanced budget and that Congress should live under the same logical, practical rules that every family has to live under, and that is that we had to try to pay down our debt and try to live within our means. We took a great deal of criticism that year and through the next election and were charged with accusations such as ``Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of children,'' and ``they are radical,'' and ``they are taking the security out of Social Security,'' and ``they are reducing spending at the sacrifice of America and the sacrifice of our economy.'' Of course, that did not happen, and we were successful in reaching a balanced budget. Now, I think everybody agrees, the President included, that a balanced budget is reasonable. The question and the challenge is do we continue down the road we have had for so many years, the last 45 years, of moving for a bigger, more expensive, more intrusive Federal Government, really on the road to socialism; or do we set some priorities and do we say what is reasonable for taxpayers to pay in terms of the money they earn? Right now the average taxpayer in the United States pays about 40 cents out of every dollar they earn in taxes to local, State and Federal Government. If we include the regulations that we impose on business, then it gets up to about 50 cents. So the first question is, how big should government be in terms of what earnings and income is? I say it is at its largest. Our taxes today are larger than they have ever been in the history of this country except for World War II. Now, should we pay down the debt or reduce taxes with some of the surpluses that are projected? In the budget we passed this year, we took what many of us have been preaching for the last several years, and that is to say that we were not going to use any of the Social Security surplus for any other government spending, and we came up with this idea of a lockbox. The lockbox is simply using every penny of the surplus coming into Social Security and using that money to pay down the debt held by the public. So it does not solve the Social Security problem, but at least it does not spend it for other government programs. Now, the challenge is, as we look at approximately a trillion dollars coming in over the next 10 years in income taxes, and another definition for surpluses in income taxes is somebody that is being overtaxed, how much of that money should go towards paying down the debt; how much of that money should be used for expanded government spending; and how much of that money should go into tax relief, or giving back to the American people? Or a better way to say that is let the American people keep a few more dollars of what they have earned. This tax reduction bill we passed the other day does both; it is a demand on paying down the debt as well as a tax cut for every American. We have defined our goal of reducing the debt in terms of how much the debt service costs in this country. Alan Greenspan told our Committee on the Budget that a good way to measure the imposition of how big the debt is in this country is to measure the debt service cost. That is how much interest we pay out. That is $360 billion a year. We need to bring that down. That interest rate is now tied to whether or not we have across-the-board tax reductions. So we set back the across-the-board tax reduction for any year that we do not reduce the interest cost. So I think it is correct, and I hope most of us agree, that we save Social Security and Medicare, but we also work at paying down the debt and we let the American people keep a few more dollars of what they have earned. They already work 4 months and 11 days during the year for taxes. That is enough.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer from Michigan. There is a lot of hogwash and rhetoric being shoveled on this tax debate. So I challenge, Mr. Speaker, the American people to try to separate the hay from the chaff. I came into Congress in 1993. It was a Democratic majority at that time and what they and the President did first off was increase taxes by $280 billion over the 5 years of the budget. They used the, $280 billion tax increase to grow government. Let me report what this tax bill we're discussing today does over 5 years. It reduces taxes $156 billion and reduces the public debate $800 billion. What happened in 1993 was a slow-down of the economy. Four and a half years ago, the Republicans took the majority. The first thing we did in this Congress was have a rescission bill that reduced expenditures. We have held the line on expenditures. The Democrats have been complaining that Republicans are too frugal, they are not spending enough money. I look at the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that he is going to offer as a substitute, and as it turns out it is a tax increase. It is consistent with what the President has suggested. The President has schemed in his budget that we have a tax increase of $100 billion and that we expand the spending of government by that $100 billion. If the papers are correct, the Democrat leader over in the Senate is suggesting that we use one-third of the surplus to have a tax cut; we use two-thirds to expand this government. That is the danger. Who believes if we do not get this money out of town and back in the pockets of the workers that earned it, Washington politicians are not going to spend it. Unlike the growing of crops on the farm, the growing of government is not good. I am very interested and concerned with paying down the debt. Republicans have been in the majority for 4\1/2\ years. In that time we have cut spending, stopped spending the Social Security Trust Fund money and balanced the budget. For most every year that the Democrats were in the majority prior to 1995, they spent the Social Security Trust Fund surplus on other government programs and increased the debt of this country to $5 trillion. In the first 5 years of this tax proposal we pay down the public debt by $900 billion; $900 billion. Also we are doing more. With the tax cut we now require that Washington reduce the debt. Now we have a trigger. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), I hope the conferees will proceed with dedication to make sure that this tax bill assures that we continue our effort to pay down the debt.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) on the gun issue. Many of us felt that it was important to close the loophole at gun shows. The question and the argument centered around the question--Is 24 hours reasonable to have a criminal history check? I am from Michigan. In Michigan we have required a criminal history check to purchase a hand gun for the last 50 years. So the reasonableness of keeping guns out of the hands of felons is something I think most of us should agree on. To close the loophole, at gun shows where individuals that are not licensed gun dealers sell guns to other individuals at the show, a law change is necessary. The suggestion that came from the Democratic side of the aisle to require 24 hours for a criminal history check. I called the FBI. They reported that with the current 3 days, sometimes they miss that an individual has committed a felony. But what happens is the FBI immediately call the ATF, the local law enforcement, because they have committed two felonies. Once in their certification and once taking possession of a gun. They immediately go after them. They prosecute them. They confiscate the gun. There was no reason for the Democrats to have voted down this gun control bill that would have closed this gun show loop-hole.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1999 the city of Tecumseh will celebrate its 175th anniversary. Tecumseh has a long and rich history dating back to 1824, when Musgrove Evans, Joseph Brown and Austin Wing founded the town making Tecumseh one of the first three settlements in the Michigan Territory along with Detroit and Monroe. Tecumseh shares its unique name with the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh, who used the site as a meeting place for local Indian tribes and war councils in his effort to form a unified Indian nation. The residents of Tecumseh have always been civic-minded and concerned with the conditions of their fellow man. Prior to the Civil War Tecumseh, along with several other communities in Lenawee County, was a common transit point for slaves seeking freedom along with the Underground Railroad. While maintaining its distinctive small town atmosphere and agricultural roots, Tecumseh has been home to a multi-national Fortune 500 company, Tecumseh Products Inc., since 1934. It is a testament to the perseverance and faith of her residents that Tecumseh has prospered for so long. I am proud of the city of Tecumseh and what its residents have accomplished over the last 175 years and I wish them another successful 175 years. I am proud to represent Tecumseh and offer them my heartfelt congratulations on this truly remarkable milestone.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I was going to make some comments on the Republican agenda and the best program on where we go on saving Social Security, and our best defense, our excellence in education and tax relief, but after the previous speaker, I want to mention my disappointment that we have not closed the loophole in a vote by this House on what happens at gun shows. And for the information of those that voted against the loophole closing bill the other day, I just want to explain what happens if an individual lies on the form in the application to buy the gun and they do not find out that he has committed a felony until maybe 2 days later or 3 days later. What happens is the FBI and the ATF call local law enforcement because this individual has now committed two felonies, one in lying on the application; second, taking possession of the gun. They go after him. They do that immediately. They take him, they prosecute him, they confiscate the weapon. Additionally, States have the right to impose restrictions as they see fit. I am disappointed on that side of the aisle that we did not move ahead with closing the loophole.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and I had introduced. I understand that TEA-21 might be a reason for claiming it out of order. In addition, it amends page 26 of the bill. Let me just briefly tell the body our concern with spending millions of dollars for new fixed-rail starts. This amendment, if passed, would have saved $980 million. What happens is, these new subway systems, these new fixed-rail systems are not paying their way. They are extremely expensive. I am going to say this very quickly and very briefly. It is an issue that should concern us all. I understand that most of these new starts are Republican projects, but a Department of Transportation study has found that subsidies for building and operating mass transit rail programs cost between $4,800 and $17,000 annually for each rider. Then, after we build the system, we continue to subsidize them. We have increased the Federal Government's cost share because local communities are not interested in putting in 50 percent of the cost. I think it is an issue that we need to consider. We need to look about us as we are threatened with spending the Social Security surplus money. It is a special challenge to each one of us to make sure we be very frugal. There is not a single mass transit rail system in the U.S. that covers its operating cost with fares. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Schuler's Restaurant & Pub of Marshall, Michigan on 90 years of tradition in hospitality and fine dining. Schuler's heritage is a testament to the entrepreneurial spirit of the restaurant's founder, Albert Schuler. Through four generations of family ownership, Schuler's has maintained an impeccable reputation for its unforgettable fare, impeccable service, and casually elegant atmosphere. Albert's first restaurant quickly became a popular local gathering spot. His son Win Schuler expanded the business and it became the place to go for fine dining for my family and thousands of other families in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. Win's son and current President and Chairman, Hans Schuler states ``We are able to celebrate Schuler's 90 year tradition of hospitability and fine dining because of our evolving vision for the restaurant and our ongoing investment in its future.'' As a cornerstone of historic Marshall, Michigan, the City of Hospitality, Schuler's 505 seat restaurant features exquisite old world ambiance with its trademark wood beams containing quotes from pundits such as Shakespear, Voltaire, and Mark Twain. Schuler's serves over a quarter of a million people a year, and serves more than 1,600 people alone on its busiest day, Mother's Day. Because of Marshall's location, it has often been called, the ``Crossroads of the Big Ten Conference'', and has served famous college coaches such as Ara Parshegian, Bo Schembechler and George Perles, to name a few. As such, Schuler's has created a reputation that reaches well beyond their immediate community, yet never losing sight of their service to their community. Throughout the next six months, Schuler's will honor their tremendous milestone by offering several events that will give them the opportunity to share their accomplishments with everyone in the community. These events include a monthly celebrity bartender, a complimentary dinner to anyone celebrating a birthday in their 90's, and a 20% discount to those families who dine with three generations present. I am inspired by the great entrepreneurial legacy and commitment to the values that Schuler's has been founded upon, its long history, and its family ownership. Congratulations Schuler's for 90 years of business and much continued success for many years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very appropriate that a Republican speaks from the Democrat side of the isle to talk about this issue because it is a bipartisan effort that represents fairness. We have heard how it disrupts agriculture and causes great stress for the survival of the family farm in the United States. I think what also needs to be said is sanctions on food exports does not work. We have had embargoes and sanctions for several reasons. The fact is that in the end another country will sell their agricultural products when we stop selling to a particular country. Those countries still get food & fiber products, and the loser is the United States' farmers and ranchers. We have sanctions for a couple of reasons. Both administrations have made the mistake of doing it. We had a sanction under the Nixon administration because there was a shortage of soybeans. There were cries from consumers and millers calling on the President to, shut off the export of soybeans because prices are going too high in this country and shuting off exports would in crease domestic supply and reduce price. That is fine, but of course, we all know what happened. Japan, who was dependent on the United States for their soybean needs, decided to look for a more dependable supply and eventually went to Brazil. They bought and cleared land. They found that they could develop and grow soybeans down there very, very well. Brazil's soybean agriculture has expanded. Now they are one of the major competitors to the United States soybean market. President Carter decided to punish Russia in 1981 by cutting off much needed wheat from the U.S., Russia started looking for a more reliable supplies and again American farmers again were the loosers. Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody will move ahead, not only on this bill, but even a more aggressive bill that simply provides we will stop embargoes and sanctions on agricultural products for any reason. Number one because it is disrupting American agriculture, and number two, it does not work.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rolcall No. 204, my plane was delayed due to bad weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

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 he has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Joshua Gillette, winner of the 1999 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, Joshua 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. Joshua Gillette is an exceptional student at Michigan Center High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Joshua's involvement in football, basketball and track began his freshman year and continued through his senior year. He excelled both academically and athletically as President of the Student Council and Captain of the Football and Track Teams. Outside of school, Joshua participated in several volunteer activities to improve the community. Therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Joshua Gillette for his 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 his success. To this remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.

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 he has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Andrew Towne, winner of the 1999 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, Andrew 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. Andrew Towne is an exceptional student at Pittsford High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Andrew's involvement in football, basketball and track began his freshman year and continued through his freshman year and continued through his senior year. He excelled both academically and athletically as Captain of the Quiz Bowl and Basketball Team. Outside of school, Andrew participated in several volunteer activities to improve the community. Therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Andrew Towne for his 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 his success. To this remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I call this resolution to your attention. Whereas, 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 Krista Carpenter, a recipient of the 1999 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This Scholarship is awarded to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. Whereas, in being named as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Krista Carpenter is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, depth of intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. Whereas, Krista Carpenter is an exceptional student at Hudson High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Krista has excelled both athletically and academically, being involved in three varsity sports teams, while being a member of the National Honor Society. Outside of school activities, she has been active in her church, as well as receiving special honors for her involvement in 4-H. Be it resolved, That as a member of Congress of the United States of America, I am proud to join with your many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations as a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors