Nick Smith

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 Christina Wright, 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, Christina 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. Christina Wright is an exceptional student at Marshall High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Christina has received numerous awards for her involvement in Debate and the Performing Arts. Outside of school, she has served the community through many church activities and the United Way. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Christina Wright 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.

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 Megan Rooney, 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, Megan 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. Megan Rooney is an exceptional student at Concord High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Megan's involvement in student government and school activities began her freshman year and continued through her senior year. She served as President of the student body and Vice-President of S.A.D.D. Megan excelled athletically as well on the basketball and softball teams. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Megan Rooney 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.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 171, I was inadvertently detained in a meeting with AARP re Social Security. Had I been present, I would have voted ''yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the challenge before this body this week and the next several weeks is passing 13 appropriation bills. The challenge is based on whether or not we are going to stick by the promise that we made in the balanced budget agreement of 1997. At that time most of the Democrats and most Republicans voted for that balanced budget agreement. That balanced budget agreement included setting caps on future spending. Keeping that commitment means that for the next fiscal year we will not be spending any of the Social Security surplus. Now the question is--can we keep that commitment? Can we keep that promise? Last week we passed what we called a lockbox, again stating that we are not going to spend the Social Security surplus dollars for other government spending programs. Let us keep our commitment. Let us keep our promise to the American people. Let us not jeopardize current and future Social Security recipients by caving in to the big spenders.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious occasion. Somehow I wish we could holler a little louder and shout about the fact that there is a greater interest in saving Social Security. I brought with me three bills, one from 1995, one from 1997 and one from 1999, all of which take Social Security off the budget. That is what this bill does, too. I think that is a good point. I hope your recommit bill does the same thing and says from now on at least we are not going to talk and use the Social Security surplus to mask the deficit, because that is what we have been doing. For most every year for the last 40 years, we have been spending the Social Security surplus and in our eagerness to brag about a balanced budget, we have used Social Security to mask the deficit. At least this is a beginning. This is saying we are not going to do it anymore, we are going to make an effort to say that we are going to take the surpluses, that amount that is coming in from the Social Security tax that is in excess of what is needed for Social Security benefits and we are going to put it aside. This side has said, ``Well, look. It's not perfect.'' That is right. Fifty perecent of the Members can change the rule. It is all going to depend on how much guts we have got. It is going to depend on how much intestinal fortitude we have to say, ``Look. We're going to live within our means. We're not going to spend Social Security for other government programs and expand the size of government.'' I compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), an early mover in trying to solve Social Security. The fact is that this does not solve the Social Security problem, but it gets a little more public awareness. If we can pass this legislation and stick to it, if we can say, look, we are not going to spend the Social Security surplus for other government programs. And if there are things that are so blasted important, we are going to either cut down on other spending someplace else or we are going to increase taxes. Let us not pretend anymore by spending the Social Security surplus, but, look, let us decide here and now that we have got the will power to move ahead with real solutions for Social Security.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, agriculture is very important to me. I am a farmer. Agriculture has been shortchanged. We need to pay attention to agriculture and the survival of the family farm as other countries protect and subsidize their farmers. But I think that is one reason that this is the first of the appropriation bills where we are faced with the decision of overspending. Are we going to start inching our way into a situation where we have to break our word on keeping our commitment on the caps that we set in 1997. Just to make it clear, synonymous with sticking to the caps under the current CBO projections is whether or not we spend the social security trust fund surpluses to accommodate that extra spending. For most every year in the last 40 years, we have used the social security surpluses to mask the deficit; in other words, we have spent the social security surpluses for other government programs. A lot of people here say, well, do not worry about it, somehow social security is going to take care of itself. I disagree. The easy step, the easiest possible thing that we can do, is say that we are going to stop spending the social security surpluses for other government programs. That is a baby step. That is so easy compared to the program changes that are going to have to be implemented to change social security so it can stay solvent. So when we are faced with a situation that we inch our way into overspending and using Social Security surpluses on this important Agricultural budget, which is so difficult for so many of us to vote against, we set the pattern. Then the next budget that is also important, we are faced with more overspending. Then a situation at the end is that we cannot possibly stay within our caps and not spend the social security surpluses. Look, if the spending is so important, have the guts, the fortitude, to say, we are going to increase taxes to accommodate this kind of spending. Do not say, we are simply going to reach under the table, take the social security surpluses that are coming in because current workers are being overtaxed, and use that money, because few will notice the abuse. Nobody is going to see it or realize it until it runs out of money. We have ground this country into a $5.5 trillion debt. We are increasing that debt on a daily basis. Sometime we are going to have to face up to the fact that we are transferring our shortsighted desire for more overspending to our kids and our grandkids and future generations. Not only will they be asked to come up with additional income taxes but also social security taxes to pay for our overindulgence. I just give the Members a couple of situations. Germany did not pay attention to this early on, and now they are spending almost 50 percent of their wages in taxes to accommodate their senior retirement program. I am very concerned that we are going down, if you will, the primrose path of thinking all of these expenditures are necessary and important. I would just like to encourage my colleagues to face up to the consequences. If spending is so important, let us increase taxes to accommodate that spending. Let us reduce other expenditures to accommodate that spending. But let us keep our promise and not spend social security surpluses.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I object, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about an important issue for everyone in this country. It is social security. Everybody that is now receiving social security is concerned when Congress starts talking about changes in social security, because the fact is that one-third of the individuals that are now receiving social security depend on that social security check for 90 percent or more of their retirement income, a huge dependency. So it is easy to understand why seniors get nervous. Everybody that is near retirement age is concerned, because they have planned their retirement and the fact is that social security is running out of money. Those individuals under 55 years of age are the generation most at risk, because they may be asked to spend a lot more paying for the retirement benefits of those that retired before them. This week we are going to discuss what has been called a lockbox for social security. It does not fix social security, but it provides that Congress promises not to spend the social security trust fund surpluses for other government programs. It is a good start, but make no mistake, it does nothing to change the fundamentals of the programs and fix social security in the long run. Briefly, let me describe, what the problems of social security are. When we started the social security program in 1934, it was developed as a pay-as-you-go program, where existing current workers paid in their social security tax for the benefits of existing current retirees, so essentially no savings. The social security taxes went in one week, and by the end of the week they were sent out in benefits to retirees. The system worked very well in the early stages because there were 42 people working for every 1 retiree receiving those tax benefits. By 1950, the number of people working went down to 17 people working, sending in their social security taxes for every one retiree. Today it is 3 people working, sending in their social security taxes, for every retiree. The estimate is that by 2030, there are only going to be 2 people working. So what we are asking those 2 people to do, without changes in the social security structure, without changes in the system, we are asking those two workers to try to earn and produce enough for their families plus one retiree; almost impossible. The Federal Government, since it continues to raise taxes, and it has raised social security taxes 36 times since 1976, more often than once a year. Today 75 percent of our workers pay more in the social security tax than they do in income tax. But as government raised those taxes on workers, they took the extra money coming in above and beyond what was needed for benefit payments for retirees and the families and the disabled and they spent the money on other government programs. What that has done is dig us a $700 billion IOU to future retirees that government, that Congress, that the President has no idea how to pay back. I plead with my colleagues and, Madam Speaker, I plead with the American people to look at Social Security, look at how it is going to affect their lives and the future if Congress and the President is not willing to step up to the plate and deal with the serious problems of Social Security. I have a proposal that I will be introducing in the next week that, provided we start slowing down some of the benefits for those high- income retirees and use some of that money for private investment accounts, to put that money into individual accounts so those individuals own that money, instead of Congress spending it on other programs. Let me just finish by saying what tremendously complicates and should concern all of us in terms of how we deal with Social Security is a Supreme Court decision. In fact, two Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court has said there is no entitlement for Social Security benefits; that there is no relationship between the taxes we pay in and our right to receive any Social Security check when we retire. That means that the young generations, those under 55 years old, are completely dependent on future politicians deciding how much they might cut their benefits. And just one last word, Madam Speaker. The longer we put this off, the more drastic the solution. Let us do it, let us get at it, and let us deal with it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we have obtained the consent of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member, who support this amendment, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to help farmer and ranchers is in the bill before us. It provides that the Administrator of NASA shall discover and catalog the kind of remote sensing information, commercial and otherwise, that might be usable to help farmers and others determine potential crop shortages and surpluses and ultimately how much of what crop to plant in this country. We have advanced tremendously over the last 30 years in our ability to discover what yields to expect from crop production around the world by means of satellite and other remote sensing monitoring. We are now able to estimate yields of some of the major crops within a plus or minus 10 percent deviation, up to sixty days before harvest. This information could be of great use to farmers. The amendment now before us simply provides a way to disseminate this information to farmers.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday in my Social Security Task Force meeting that I was going to do some yelling and screaming about encouraging the American people and this Congress to move ahead with Social Security reform. If the American people decide that there should be Social Security reform, then we will do it. That is what happens in Washington. We have made a tremendous stride forward in saying we are not going to spend the Social Security surpluses for other government expenditures. But if nobody cares, this body and the President are going to spend that money. I think it is so important that every community, every senior citizen, every young person that is going to end up paying this bill start being active, start writing their legislators, start writing the President, because we have got to put Social Security first and put politics second.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, although the legislation is obscure, the story of the FQA holds an important lesson about how government can go overboard with regulations. This bill is an example of what we're trying to do to repeal costly and ineffective rules. About 380 companies in the U.S. manufacture fasteners, employing about 44,000 people and ringing up about $7.5 billion in sales annually. Fasteners go into many products, including automobiles, aircraft, appliances, construction and agriculture machinery, and commercial buildings. Americans consume approximately 200 billion fasteners every year, 26 billion by the auto industry alone. In the late 1980s, there were fears of harm from mismarked, substandard and fraudulently sold fasteners, mainly from abroad. Congress reacted by passing the FQA an 1990 (before I came to Congress). As originally written, it set federal standards for fasteners and required that they be tested at federally-certified laboratories. The FQA has never gone into effect because no implementing regulations were written until 1998. Draft regulations had proven unworkable and rapid improvements in fasteners made some regulations out of date before they could be approved. By the time final implementing regulations were adopted last year, many questions had been raised about the FQA's regulatory burdens and the need for federal standards at all. Congress passed another law last year to delay the regulations from taking affect in order to have the Department of Commerce evaluate the need for the law. In its study, the Department found no real threat to public safety from fasteners. At the same time, the regulations would have been extremely costly and created a new bureaucracy. The Automobile Manufacturers Association, for example, estimated that bureaucratic delays and other factors associated with the regulations would have cost the auto industry $318 million in the first year alone. This bill will replace the law's federal standards with a simpler rule: tell the truth. So long as sellers accurately represent a fastener's quality, they will comply with the law. Those who misrepresent a fastener's quality, however, will be subject to serious legal penalties. THis story shows both how government writes bad regulations and how they can be fixed. Too often, Congress allows itself to propose permanent regulatory solutions to temporary problems. The result is unnecessary expense. In this case, as in many others, market pressure did more to protect consumers than government could. Doing away with these rules represents the beginning of what many of us are trying to accomplish in reviewing and modifying laws to eliminate unnecessary government regulations.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, just reporting to my colleagues, today at our Social Security Task Force meeting, Roger Ibbotson was one of the witnesses, and he estimated that the stock market would increase to 100,000 by the year 2025. So as we talk about the possibility of taking advantage of some of the investment money coming in in Social Security taxes and helping to solve the Social Security problem by using some of that money for private retirement investment accounts, if his estimates are a little bit high or a little bit low, and I would recall to our attention that it was Dr. Ibbotson that said in 1974 that the stock market would go from 1,000 to 10,000. Of course, that was at a time when the stock market was significantly depressed. So as we look for real solutions to Social Security, I think it is becoming more agreed that part of the effort that we must take is getting a better return on the investment that workers of this country pay in. Doctor Gary Burtless also testified before our Social Security Task Force today and agreed that long-term investment rates can enhance Social Security. Dr. Gary Burtless is a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies with the Brooking Institution. Dr. Burtless has published various articles on Social Security, Medicare and social welfare, and testified before several House and Senate committees. He has published various articles and presented testimony. Dr. Roger Ibbotson, Professor of finance at Yale School of Management, also serves as Chairman of Ibbotson Associates, which publishes an annual Yearbook of stock, bonds, treasury bill, and inflation rates. He has been recognized as a leading expert in measuring rates of return for the past twenty years. Our bi-partisan Social Security Task Force meets every week on Tuesday at noon. All members are welcome to attend and I will again send out a report to, colleagues on todays hearing.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, more than ever the American fire and emergency services are being called upon to respond to new challenges and incidents, most notably chemical, biological, nuclear, and conventional weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, they have small budgets, higher operating costs and fewer volunteers. To their credit, the fire and emergency services simply make do with what they have in every one of our communities, but the cost to them is high. Roughly 100 firefighters and first responders die every year on the job and nearly one-third of our firefighters are injured. This compares, incidentally, to about 180 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty each year. However, both groups are vital to our communities. The difference is the budgets, with police getting about twentyfold of what we are giving to firefighters. For first responders, we can do better. Today, the House will vote on the reauthorization of the United States Fire Administration. In this Congress the vote will not seem significant, but within the American fire services this is a landmark occasion. The United States Fire Administration is the lead agency for our 1.2 million first responders, the brave men and women who stand ready at a moment's notice to place their own lives in danger in order to protect ours. In the three terms I have served in Congress, this legislation is one of my proudest achievements. The United States Fire Administration was established in 1975 under the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974. Its mission was divided into four program areas: data collection, public education, training, and technology development. Much of the progress in reducing fire-related deaths over the past 25 years can be attributed to the work of the USFA. In recent years, the United States Fire Administration has been subject to scrutiny and criticism from its own constituents. In fact, James Lee Witt, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, appointed a blue ribbon commission to conduct a thorough review of the administration and report back with recommendations to revitalize its mission. The commission represented virtually every facet of fire services, including career and volunteer firefighters, chiefs, ethnic and female firefighters and instructors. Having had the pleasure of meeting with the chair and co-chairperson of this distinguished commission, I can say that this group made certain that all views were represented in the report. They listed 34 recommendations to improve the United States Fire Administration. At the top of their list was additional funding. As many of my colleagues know, I am a fiscal conservative. So, quite frankly, I was somewhat skeptical of their motives. However, after careful review of the report, I saw in it a serious and earnest effort on the part of these stakeholders to bring about positive change, to increase funding for the United States Fire Administration while at the same time holding it accountable for its own performance. The measure we will consider today will increase USFA's authorization from $30 million to $46 million in fiscal year 2000, approximately a 40% increase. It provides a fourfold increase in research that is so vital for firefighter safety and reducing the amount of damage in this country from fires. The legislation will require USFA to prepare a 5-year plan on how the funding will be spent, mandating the administration to coordinate activities with other Federal agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It will channel new funding into the National Fire Academy for counterterrorism training for first responders and call 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. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago, as a member of the Congressional Fire Caucus, I had the pleasure of attending the 11th Annual National Fire and Emergency Services dinner here in Washington, D.C. The event was sponsored by leadership of the caucus, and I must say I was somewhat embarrassed to be seated at the head table when that honor should have been accorded to the 2,000 fire service leaders seated in the audience. They came from every corner of the United States here to represent their segment of the firefighting industry. They were here in Washington to learn about the Federal process while also to enjoy themselves at the dinner. But as I stand here today delivering these remarks, many of them are properly responding to emergencies placing their own lives in harm's way. So when I say this legislation is one of my proudest achievements, my colleagues now know why. This will have 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 offered their support to me throughout this entire reauthorization 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 am concerned that Washington's commitment to firefighters is not as great as firefighter's commitment to us. Too often, we take their willingness to protect and assist us for granted. The next time you hear a siren or see a fire truck, you should give some thought to the firefighters and rescue workers, who are mostly volunteers, going out of their way and often risking their lives to protect their communities and neighbors. I hope H.R. 1550 can be the beginning of a national effort to increase our support for these public-spirited citizens. H.R. 1550 is an important piece of legislation that deserves broad bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to support it. Allow me to note some recent heroes, firefighter Matt Mosely, suspended from a helicopter hovering over a flame-engulfed factory plucked Ivers Sims from the top of a construction crane. March 16, 1999, The Bourbonnais Fire Department, a volunteer department with 44 men and only three pumpers responded to the worst train wreck in America since 1993 found 14 dead and 119 injured. And acted with valor. April 20, 1999, In Littleton, Colorado fire engineers placed their engines closer to the school to serve as cover for advancing officers and escaping students in Littleton. Capt. Richard Knowlton, of the Austin Fire Department, dove from a 26-foot cliff into a Northwest Austin pond in June, After Knowlton pulled a swimmer from the pond, he attempted mouth-to-mouth resuscitation until emergency medical rescuers arrived. We cannot overlook their needs without continued loss of life. Sgt. John Carter, who died last year in Washington, D.C. was an unnecessary fatality. The reconstruction report said that he could have been saved if his portable radio worked properly. It was old, it was faulty, and he died from drowning in a basement when his air ran out. If fireground communication can save even one life, how much is it worst spending. Finally, it is very important to contrast spending on law enforcement vs. spending on the fire services. The federal government probably spends more than $96 million a month on everything from cars to vests for cops, while the fire services get nothing. And I would like to cite the lack of leadership in the Administration on this vote for H.R. 1550!

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues are restless. I will try to make this brief. I have been waiting 9 hours to talk about a point that I think is very important. The motion, the amendment, says that since we are borrowing this money, since we are taking the surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for this bill, that this amendment says that when there is an on-budget surplus, we should use that money and put it in the same kind of lockbox that we passed in the budget resolution that would go to pay down the debt. I just plead with my colleagues that something as important as this kind of funding for our military, does it not justify increasing taxes to pay for it, or cutting other government spending to pay for it, instead of just increasing borrowing that our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay back? Listen to this: For almost every year out of the last 40 years, we have used the Social Security Trust Fund surplus for government spending. This year, in a historic vote, this Chamber voted a budget resolution that says starting next year we are not going to do that anymore. We are going to, starting next year, not use any of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus for government spending, and it is going to be put in this so-called lockbox. In effect, it is going to go to pay down the public debt, until it can be used for a solid Social Security. It just seems so reasonable not to continue to increase the debt subject to the debt limit that somebody else is going to have to pay back sometime. Let us make a decision of priorities. Let us make a decision if spending of the government is important enough to increase taxes, let us take that question to the American people. Mr. Chairman, this supplemental appropriations bill will result in additional government spending out of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. That's not right and it shortchanges current and future retirees. This amendment creates a ``lockbox-type'' mechanism to repay the money that this supplemental appropriation will require us to borrow from Social Security. The amendment captures the first $12.9 billion in non-Social Security surpluses that come into the Treasury. The amendment then directs the Secretary of the Treasury to use that money to retire public debt. This is the same thing done by the ``Social Security lockbox'' legislation. This amendment allows us to support our military while being fiscally responsible and protecting Social Security for future generations. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I see a lot of students in our gallery today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that our Social Security task force meeting yesterday that examined the consequences of doing nothing with Social Security resulted in the headline that antipoverty programs for seniors result in poverty for future American workers. We need to stop spending the Social Security Trust Fund for other government programs. Our taxes today are higher than they have ever been in most of our history, even through World War II. We have heard a lot of good government spending programs from the speakers this morning that would mean raiding the Social Security Trust Fund or increasing taxes. I just plead with my colleagues that if there are other good programs, they need to be justified on the basis of increasing taxes to pay for those programs or cutting other government spending to pay for those programs, but stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. We are already facing a $7\1/2\ trillion unfunded liability to maintain Social Security. We can't afford to continue to make the situation worse.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and thank him for his leadership and those on his committee for bringing a bill before Congress that is going to have the effect of lowering interest rates and making credit more available. This bill encourages competition by reducing uncertainty. Right now, all those credit card companies jack up their interest rates because their competition is forced to impose high interest rates to cover the ease of declaring bankruptcy. Also let me just say that the farm provisions in this bill that extend indefinitely the provisions of chapter 12 in title 11 for farmers is very good for the agricultural community.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the reason I am supporting this bill is because it has the tendency of making loans more available and it has the tendency of bringing interest rates down. This amendment throws open the door for litigation every time there is a dispute as to whether a debtor's particular expenses are reasonably necessary. This will dramatically increase administrative burdens on the bankruptcy system. It also leaves the door open to indecision based on individual judge interpretation. Passing this amendment and doing away with the bill's more definite guidelines means those interest rates will not come down; it means that the increased availability of those loans will not be forthcoming until the lenders have decided what judges are going to do with the discretion that is added by the Hyde amendment. H.R. 833 does not incorporate the actual repayment test used by the IRS. Instead, it incorporates the categories identified by the IRS as necessary expenses. This is an important distinction because the means test of H.R. 833 is more flexible than anything used by the IRS. The ability to consider ``extraordinary circumstances'' provided for under the bill is a better mechanism to establish fair and equitable reform than the amendment giving bankruptcy judges discretion to create their own tests of ``reasonableness''. Allowing bankruptcy judges to create their own test is an invitation not only to the different treatment of debtors but also to confusion among creditors and those who work within the bankruptcy system. I urge defeat of the Hyde amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I just want to say that I come in support of preserving American agriculture, because generally in this Congress, in this Nation, it is not a partisan issue. I say this with some emotion, because we have a serious challenge facing traditional agriculture in the United States. Other countries are doing everything they can to protect their farmers. We have been somewhat carefree in saying we should go to a market system and therefore, it is up to whatever the market might bear on American farmers. That is fine if the, if you will, playing field were level, but if other countries are going to subsidize their farmers to protect their farmers, that becomes an ultimate competitive disadvantage to our farmers, and then we have to be more aggressive in making sure that we preserve our agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to interrupt.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act because I was detained away from the Capitol and the vote closed as I returned. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and also thank him for his leadership on this legislation; of course, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1184 is legislation to reauthorize what is called the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, NEHRP. It is a bill I am pleased to sponsor on behalf of the Committee on Science. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, this NEHRP, has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the Committee on Science. The primary purpose of NEHRP is simple: To save lives and to reduce property damage. But while the goal may be stated simply, getting a grip on this problem of earthquakes poses a greater dilemma. Since its inception in 1977, NEHRP has done a credible job of contributing to our store of knowledge about the causes and effects of earthquakes, and it has reduced our vulnerability to them through engineering research and new building designs. The program's monitoring component also holds the promise of providing real-time warning to citizens and a wealth of data to researchers. Indeed, improving earthquake warning by just a few seconds can mean the difference between life and death. It can mean those few seconds where we might send a signal to shut off the gas going through gas mains and many other areas which can significantly reduce the damage of earthquakes. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program also has an international and humanitarian aspect. Because of the almost tens of thousands of earthquakes around the world, all of these countries look to our research and information to help reduce their damage to property and save lives. Many countries around the world continually monitor and use the information that will develop through the authorization in this bill. The advanced national seismic research and monitoring system, authorized in this bill, is important. Not only will it improve warning times, but the data it collects will provide researchers with information that will lead to safer buildings and designs and a greater understanding of how earthquakes propagate. The periodic nature of earthquakes can often lead to complacency. Probably that is human nature. But that kind of complacency can carry great risk. Let me just hold up this map a minute, Mr. Chairman, to give my colleagues an idea. If we can see sort out the dark images of little spots across this globe, tens of thousands of earthquakes happen every year. In fact, in the United States last year there were over 1,000 earthquakes. Some modest, some very severe. Certainly the earthquake that struck Kobe, Japan in early 1995 caused nearly 6,000 deaths and over $100 billion in damages. And of course, more recently, the tragedy in Armenia, Colombia, in which well over 1,000 people lost their lives I think are stern reminders of the destructive power of earthquakes. The Loma Prieta earthquake caused $6 billion in damage, Northridge earthquake caused $40 billion in damages, and provide, I think, a glimpse of what could happen here if we are not adequately prepared. As the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), noted in his statement, 39 States in this country are exposed to a significant earthquake risk, and about 75 million people live in urban areas with a moderate to high earthquake risk. Thankfully, in my home State of Michigan, earthquakes are very rare, but even Michigan is vulnerable to earthquakes. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would again certainly like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science, for their assistance in preparing this important bill and for their efforts in bringing it to the floor, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.