Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 94, I was stuck in the No. 4 elevator in the Cannon House Office Building. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am here to acknowledge defeat in a wager that I encountered with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). We bet, as unsuitable as some might feel about wagering, but we bet on the Duke-Michigan State game, and the loser was to furnish each member of the Committee on Agriculture with an agricultural product from their State. As great a team as Michigan State is and was, they ended up slightly being defeated by Duke University. And I just wanted to announce publicly that I am furnishing each member of the Committee on Agriculture with tokens that represent Michigan, navy beans from the State of Michigan, the world's top producer of navy beans; and also from Battle Creek, Michigan, a new cereal by Kellogg.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there is good news in terms of this Congress, this President, acknowledging that we must solve the Social Security problem. Social Security was started back in 1935 with the anticipation that there would be a continuing growth in the labor force. What has happened with this pay-as-you-go program where existing workers are paying in their Social Security taxes, and that tax is immediately sent out to existing retirees, is the demographic changes. The number of individuals working and paying in that tax in relation to the increasing number of retirees is creating a situation where Social Security is becoming insolvent. It cannot be sustained. Let me just give a couple of examples. In 1940 we had 41 individual workers paying in their tax for every one retiree. By 1950, it went down to 17 workers paying in their Social Security tax for every one retiree. Guess what it is today. Today there are three workers paying in their Social Security tax to pay the benefits for every one retiree. The estimate is that by the year 2030 there will only be two people working. So we can see a huge problem in continuing to ask the fewer and fewer number of workers to pay in a higher and higher tax to accommodate every retiree. Taxes have already significantly increased over the last several years. Since 1971, Social Security taxes have been increased 36 times. More often than once a year, we have increased the rate of the base for Social Security taxes to accommodate the increased requirement to pay benefits for existing retirees from a fewer number of workers. So the question that we are now faced with is how do we change the Social Security system to keep it solvent? How do we either increase revenues coming into the system or reduce benefits so that the Social Security system can last for tomorrow's retirees and not put a huge burden on future generations to pay more and more taxes for Social Security? I think the President suggesting that we have to put Social Security first has increased the awareness that something has to be done. In the next several days and weeks, I will be introducing my Social Security bill. It will be the third Social Security bill I have introduced that will keep Social Security solvent. Other Members, such as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), will be introducing the bill that they worked up to keep Social Security solvent. Some are suggesting only temporary solutions. I see problems in temporary solutions. I see even greater problems in solutions such as those proposed by some Democrats, the President, that have suggested that we simply add a new giant IOU to the Social Security Trust Fund and therefore somehow it is calculated that that is going to keep Social Security solvent without any changes in the program. It cannot happen. It will not work. Simply adding another IOU to the Social Security Trust Fund, in effect mandates that taxes will be increased on our kids and our grandkids to pay future benefits. Mr. Speaker, we can only raise taxes so high, and right now taxes in this country are the highest in history. Partial solutions divert attention for long term solutions and also increase the likelihood of future tax increases. Both Republicans and Democrats have suggested that until we come up with a long term solution, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus be used to pay down the public debt. However, some people in Washington want to replace the current public debt limit with two debt limits, one for Treasury securities held by the public, and one for IOUs held by the Social Security Trust Fund. This is a bad idea that would send a message that debt owed to the trust fund is less important than the debt owed to Wall Street. Some want the new statistics so that they can brag about reducing the debt held by the public. That is true, but it does not matter because the total government debt would continue to increase. Others suggest that we could consider writing off the debt owed to the trust fund because really that is just what government owes itself. That is wrong and dangerous. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to fight against any proposal that simply adds a new giant IOU to the trust fund but does not change the system to keep it solvent. I ask my colleagues to oppose temporary solutions which again just demand a tax increase in some future years. Let us step up to the plate, let us do what is necessary to solve Social Security now and keep it solvent for future generations.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge two great college basketball teams that met in the Final Four of the NCAA tournament. In a meeting of the House Agriculture Committee last month, Rep. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina and I entered into a friendly wager on whether Michigan State University or Duke University would win their semifinal match up. The wager called for the loser to furnish each member of the Agriculture Committee with a wholesome food product from his state. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge that Michigan State University's great basketball team, the Big 10 champion, riding a record win streak, lost an exciting and close game to Duke University. Mr. Speaker, to pay off this wager, I want to officially announce that I am furnishing each member of the Agriculture Committee with a bag of Michigan navy beans and I would like to note that Michigan is one of the top navy bean producers in the world. In addition, I'm furnishing each member with a box of Kellogg's new Smart Start cereal. Kellogg, which is based in Battle Creek, MI, is one of the world's top breakfast cereal producers. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the fine example of effort and determination of all the players in the NCAA tournament.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I would like to commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for moving ahead with something we need to accomplish, because it is so important that we look at all avenues in encouraging additional students to pursue the sciences. Let me just say, as we contemplate more seriously the world's situation, as we consider where America might be in the next 10 or 20 or 30 years, the challenges of staying ahead and being on the cutting edge of science and technology and information so that we can maximize our productivity and therefore our competitiveness is so very important today, probably more so than it has ever been in history. Again, I commend the gentlewoman from Texas for exploring and looking at these avenues of how we might continue to encourage more students and higher qualifications in the area of science and mathematics.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, very quickly, it is exciting, the budget resolution. It came back from the Senate with a couple changes: some increased money for child care, some lockbox language that helps assure that we do what we say we are going to do, a reserve fund that could be used for prescription drugs, a new criteria for emergency spending. This is a historic budget. For the first time in 40 years, we are not going to spend the Social Security surplus money, not going to even spend any of it for tax cuts in the next year. The challenge is what do we do with the war in Serbia? Is that going to come out of the Social Security Trust Fund? Mr. Speaker, a historic budget. It should be supported from both sides.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me just point out this chart, because I would like to drive this home as best we can. What we are suggesting in this budget is that we set 100 percent of the social security surplus aside, and lockboxes are hard, and we are hoping it does not have any false bottom, but we set it aside. Compare that with what the President is suggesting, to set only 62 percent aside. The President and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and his group have suggested that we add another giant IOU to the social security trust fund. I think that is good to give that kind of commitment, but let me suggest what it really does. It says, we are demanding a future tax increase sometime after there is less money coming in from social security than is required to pay out benefits, around 2012, 2013, or if somehow we come up with the money on what we owe the trust fund, the $700 plus billion, it means we have a tax increase in 2032 when no longer is there any surplus or anything else left. So adding this giant IOU in effect mandates that we have a tax increase. On the topic of tax increases, the President says, let us have $100 billion of tax increases. I think we have to be very careful. Both sides have to guard against spending this surplus money. I would quit there, only to suggest to the Democrats that we have come a long way. It is an historic budget. For the first time in 40 years we are not spending the social security surplus for other government programs.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I come before the Chamber this morning to talk about an important item for this country, and that is the solvency of Social Security. I have been in Congress 6 years. When I first came to Congress in the 103rd Congress, and subsequently in the 104th Congress, 105th Congress, I have introduced legislation that would keep Social Security solvent. This year, I am chairman of a bipartisan Budget Committee Task Force on Social Security. The problem of solvency justifies a few minutes of review and comment. Most workers today look forward to some kind of Social Security when we retire based on the fact that most of us now pay 12.4 percent out of every dollar we earn as a Social Security tax. Most workers anticipate that there is going to be some return on that kind of contribution to the Social Security system. However, we were told back in 1993 by the Congressional Budget Office, and by the President's Office of Management and Budget, that Social Security would be going broke. Now, in the last several months, we have been hearing from both sides of the aisle, the Democrats and the Republicans, that paying down the public debt with some of the Social Security surplus would somehow save Social Security. Not so. Not so, Mr. Speaker. It is good and it is historic that for the first time in recent history we will not be using the Social Security surplus for other government spending programs. So when some have bragged about having a balanced budget in the past, they have been misleading. It has been somewhat of a hoodwinking of the American public, because we have depended all these years on the surplus coming in from Social Security to mask the deficit. The good news is that this year, for the first time in many, many years, we will not be spending that Social Security trust fund surplus. Now we have got to have the intestinal fortitude, we have got to have the willingness, to face the tough problem of saving Social Security and Medicare. That means a restructuring of the program. Generally, Mr. Speaker, the problem is based on demographics. There are more and more retirees in relation to the number of workers paying in those taxes. Let me just give you a quick example of why depending on current worker taxes to pay current retiree benefits is a problem. In 1950, there were 17 people working, paying in their Social Security taxes that was immediately sent out to beneficiaries. 17 to 1. This year there are three workers paying in their Social Security tax for every one retiree, and the estimate is that by 2030 there will be only two workers trying to come up with enough to support their families and one retiree. So there has to be some structural changes in the way the Social Security system works. It is a tough decision, and that is why politicians have not dealt with it. There are only two ways to save Social Security. That is, either reduce benefits or increase the amount of revenue coming in. One way to increase revenue is private investment. However, that by itself will not fix Social Security. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that we have the gumption, the fortitude, the willingness to step up to the plate to make the hard decisions in order to save Social Security. Let us hope that the American people are willing to learn about the complicated ways Social Security is financed and to encourage their representatives in Congress to move ahead. Let us be clear that even though using the Social Security surplus to pay down the public debt is better public policy than using the money to finance more government spending, it does not save Social Security.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the problem, as the honorable gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, knows, is where do we come up with the money when there is not enough money coming in from Social Security to pay those benefits required? And the gentleman is just saying, let us add another giant IOU. But still the problem comes down to coming up with that money to pay those benefits. That is what needs to be dealt with.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to hoodwink people who might be listening when we are sort of listening superficially, but I think it should be very clear that the Democrat proposal does not do anything more to save social security than the Republican proposal. Members can say, well, here is scoring, and here is that. The fact is that we are going to have to come up with the same money to save social security with the Democrat proposal by saying, look, we are either going to cut other spending or we are going to increase taxes someplace. In fact, the Democrats' proposal implies that we are going to have to increase more taxes to save social security. Look, this is historic. Both sides of the aisle should be supporting this budget, because for the first time in history, for the first time in at least recent history, in the last 40 years, we do not spend any of the social security trust fund money for other government programs. Let me say it again, none of the social security surplus money is being spent for any other government spending. That is what this Chamber has been doing for the last 40 years. That is what has added to the predicament of social security and Medicare. No tax cuts from social security surpluses next year. That is historic, also. We have problems, where we go in military spending. Maybe that military spending and supporting what is happening in Kosovo is going to reach into the social security surplus funds before we finish out the end of this year. This is a good start on a budget. Our next step to save social security and Medicare has to be to step up to the plate, for people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Charlie Stenholm), people like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Jim Kolbe). Like I and so many others have said, let us face up to what really needs to be done to save social security by making some of those changes, by getting a better return on investment. I would suggest that the Democrats and Republicans have come a long way in the last several years doing what needs to be done, and that means stop spending the social security surplus money.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Britton Congregational Christian Church, of Britton, MI. It is my pleasure to pay tribute to the fine example its teaching of strong values and simple directness has provided to our District. On March 28, 1999, Britton Congregational Church, the oldest Christian Union church in Michigan, celebrated its 150th anniversary. The church took its fundamental character from the efforts of its first pastor, Elder Samuel Bradshaw, who stressed the utmost importance of strong family values. The church completed building its first chapel on January 28, 1850. The congregation moved to a new location in 1880 where it meets today, but the emphasis on family values remained the same. Rev. David Welcome, the current pastor, describes the family atmosphere: ``every person is a part of our extended family, with each member helping another when family is needed.'' The fact that Britton Congregational Church endures to this day after a century and a half of changing times and surroundings, testifies to the commitment the church has maintained to traditional family values and concern for its members. I am inspired by this legacy of commitment to the values it was founded upon, and I hold up its long history as a model for other institutions within and outside the district. Congratulations Britton Congregational Christian Church on 150 years of service and dedication. I wish you the opportunity to continue pursuing these ideals for many more years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this chart shows where we were when Republicans took the majority in 1995. For the foreseeable future, at that time, this government went deeper and deeper into debt--for as far as the economist could see. We came in, as the new majority, determined we were going to reduce and slow down spending. Look, we did it. This is historic. I went back over the last 40 years. In every one of those years that the Democrats had control they used the surplus coming in from Social Security for other Government spending. Please look, what we are doing now. We do not have to increase the national debt in this 5 year Republican budget. The President's plan, the Democrats' plan, has to increase the national debt. Their plan forces this country deeper into debt by $2 trillion more than the Republican proposal. I want to say that again to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Your plan goes deeper into debt by $2 trillion more than the Republican proposal. Nobody should just talk about the debt to the public. They have got to talk about the total Government debt. Because what we owe the Social Security Trust Fund is just as important as what we owe Wall Street. I want to talk about the caps. The Republicans stay under the caps. The Democrat proposal does not stay under the caps. I am chairman of the Committee on the Budget Task Force on Social Security. That bipartisan task force is working very well together. But I just want to say very clearly that what we are doing for the first time in recent history, is not spending the Social Security surplus for other Government programs. I mean, it is a giant step forward for saving Social Security. We are putting that money aside. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) says that they are saving Social Security by adding a giant IOU to the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund. That makes us go deeper into debt. It is not honest. It is a asset for Social Security but a deficit for the general fund. In short it is a mandate for future tax increases for our kids and grandkids. All the review of the President's proposal that suggests that we can save Social Security by adding more IOUs--conclude it is smoke and mirrors. It is!

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, some people in Washington want to replace the current debt limit of this country with two limits, one for Treasury securities held by public and one for IOUs held by the Social Security and other trust funds. This is a bad idea that would send a message that debt owed to the trust funds is less important than debt owed to Wall Street. Some want the new statistic so they can brag about reducing the debt held by the public. That would be true, but it does not matter because total government debt would keep rising. A new statistic on debt held by the public would hide this fact. Others suggest that we could consider writing off the debt owed to the trust funds because that is just what government owes itself. That is wrong and that is dangerous. I ask my colleagues to fight against any proposal to change the status of the debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I heard somebody on the other side of the aisle say this is a partisan decision. Not so. Republicans have mixed emotions. This is a serious decision. Our chairman is voting for the resolution. Some of us question it very seriously. It is only partisan if the Democrats decide that they are going to support whatever the President might do. It seems reasonable that the President of the United States should come to not only Congress, but the American people, and present some of the reasons why it is in America's interest to send our young men and women into this land of Serbia, into one of the regions of that sovereign country called Kosovo, to risk their lives. There needs to be a compelling reason. Dr. Kissinger yesterday said that we might have to bomb our way in and then not really know which side is going to shoot at us. The President is planning to deploy U.S. troops without a clear objective or exit strategy. Before we deploy any troops, we need clear answers to basic questions like how will our presence advance lasting peace, and how long will our troops remain in the region. Serbs and Albanians have fought in Kosovo, an Albanian-dominated region of southern Serbia, for centuries. Conflict in the last year between ethnic Albanian rebels and Serb police has resulted in over 2,000 deaths. If the President is not willing to come to Congress, and explain; here is the plan, here is the strategy, here is how long we expect to be there, here is what we expect American taxpayers to pay; what is going to happen when we start taking out some of our young men and women in body bags? One question I had to Dr. Kissinger is why is NATO willing to commit 24,000 of their troops? His answer was partly the U.S. demand and the U.S. initiative. Mr. Chairman, we can not be the police force for the world. We can not keep spending the Social Security trust fund money. One day, if we are not careful we will not even have these options of helping those in need. While some remain optimistic about the potential peace agreement, I have serious reservations. Ethnic Albanian leaders in Kosovo have said that they will settle for nothing less than independence. Serbia refuses to sign an agreement which dismembers the country. As Dr. Kissinger stated, ``the projected Kosovo agreement is unlikely to enjoy the support of the parties involved for a very long period of time.'' The long history of the ethnic conflict in the Balkans makes a lasting peace in Kosovo unlikely, with or without a NATO presence. If our goal is to quell the hostilities that have persevered for centuries, than we will find ourselves in the same situation that we face in Bosnia, where our troops deployed for an unlimited amount of time, with no end in sight. U.S. troops have been in Bosnia-Herzegovina since 1995 at a cost of more than $9 billion to the U.S. taxpayer. Roughly 6,900 troops are still in Bosnia, even though President Clinton promised that U.S. participation would be limited to one year. Despite the massive cuts made to our military, we have more troops deployed to hostile regions now than during the Cold War. Dr. Kissinger made the point that ``each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North Korea.'' If NATO intervenes with troops in Kosovo, the U.S. can assist its NATO partners with communications and intelligence support and back a political strategy aimed at boosting Serbian opposition to Serbian President Milosevic. However, I will not support Congressional authorization to deploy ground troops into a civil conflict with a sovereign nation to enforce a peace agreement that neither side supports.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on Social Security and two misconceptions that minimize the seriousness of keeping Social Security solvent coming from the White House and from some of the status quo'ers. One is the suggestion that if we have a strong growing economy that somehow that economic expansion will save Social Security. Let me just point out that because Social Security benefits are indexed to wage inflation, benefits go up faster than inflation. Under the current law a growing expanding economy, regardless of how dramatic, does not solve Social Security. Benefits will continue to be about 36% of income. The other claim is that if we invest some of the surplus in the capital markets, such as 62 percent, suggested by the President, somehow that investment will save Social Security. Just a quick statistic. If we were to invest the whole trillion dollars that we expect in surplus over the next 5 years into an account drawing 10.5 percent interest, it would only keep Social Security solvent for another 11 years. Saving Social Security is a serious challenge. Let us face up to it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the motion offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan. That motion is intended to simply clarify, as I understand it. The secondary motion, as I view it, adds additional bureaucracy and mandates that we are trying to narrow. Ed-Flex is about restoring local control over education, and in Michigan we have had Ed-Flex since 1994 with what I think are impressive results. Ed-Flex empowers local school districts to make school-specific improvements, bypass cumbersome Federal regulation, and expand accountability at the same time. Four years ago, if anybody had been asked, what is the more difficult problem, correcting the welfare system in this country or fixing education so that we maximize the potential of every student, I think most people would say, well, probably reforming welfare is a little tougher. Well, look, we have done that. We have said that we can reform welfare by taking some of these decisions out of Washington and giving more flexibility to States and local governments. Again, that is what we are trying to say with helping to fix education. Let us get the solution a little closer to the problem, so that there is a greater likelihood that the solutions meet and match those problems. The State of Michigan's success as a participant in the Ed-Flex program speaks directly to why this bill and the Ehlers amendment should pass without amendment. Ed-Flex has allowed Michigan to lower the poverty threshold at which schools are eligible to plan and implement Title I school-wide programs. Lowering the threshold has resulted in 500 additional schools qualifying for school-wide programs. In Michigan, schools with large concentrations of low-income students are now implementing programs which improve the entire school, rather than implementing several programs that are designed to concentrate only on small groups of students. These are the types of changes that we need to encourage if we are to improve our education system. Educational flexibility is what my local schools in the southern part of Michigan are asking for. Those schools that have already accomplished smaller classroom size do not want to be gypped, if you will, with proposals that say they can only have this Federal money if they are using it for smaller classroom size and more teachers. My schools that have already hooked up the Internet to their classrooms do not want to be short-changed out of Federal funds if they have already taken that kind of initiative to hook up their classrooms to the Internet. Let us allow greater flexibility, and give those local communities, those local teachers and school boards and those States more flexibility in deciding how they are going to be able to implement programs to assure that in the future every student can learn to their maximum potential. As chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Basic Research, I know it is very important that we dramatically improve math and science education. Ed-Flex can help us achieve those goals. Ed-Flex allows States to avoid many burdensome requirements and focus on improving student performance. It allows States to make better use of Federal education improvement programs to address local needs. Expanding Ed- Flex will also assist Congress in identifying specific changes that should be highlighted when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is reauthorized. Ed-Flex has succeeded in Michigan and we should make it available to the rest of the Nation.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it would appear that the challenge of future nursing home care is as much a challenge as Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. As we look at the dramatic demographics in the changes of an increased senior population, the challenge in the future is even going to be more overwhelming. My neighbor, Eddie Michel, of Addison, Michigan, came to me a couple of years ago concerned about the care that her mother was getting in a nursing home. That was a factor in my request from GAO along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others that GAO investigate the Federal compliance with our rules in terms of the care in nursing homes. That report, at a press conference, will be released officially on March 18 of this month. In conclusion, let me say that I compliment the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) for bringing this bill forward and for all of the people that have supported this kind of legislation. I hope that we can work together in a bipartisan effort in the future to face the challenge of the tremendous cost of nursing home care in the future. A logical alternative, of course, is expanding the kind of legislation that is going to make it easier for seniors to live in their own homes. It is going to be a significant challenge. I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). Mr. Speaker, 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 not been invited to the party. Commodity prices, as the gentlewoman from Wisconsin indicated, are at record lows, export markets are shriveling up, and no relief is expected any time soon. While the farm credit system is currently sound, there are some producers who just will not be able to make ends meet in the short term. Some bankruptcy filings are inevitable. In my district, a hog producer, a pork farmer, called me last week. He is the fourth generation on that farm. He is as smart as most any entrepreneur of small business. Yet because of prices, even with his efforts to lay off workers and to expand his working week to 55 or 60 hours, it still looks like that family farm may not make it. Chapter 12 of the title 11 bankruptcy code is only available to family farmers. Last October, Congress temporarily extended chapter 12 for 6 months. My bill was passed out of this Chamber. Now we are looking at another extension because chapter 12 now is set to expire March 31, 1999. H.R. 808 will temporarily extend chapter 12 for another 6 months so that this critical option for America's family farmers does not expire. Chapter 12 allows family farmers the option to reorganize debt rather than having to liquidate when declaring bankruptcy. The logic is that a farmer, like anybody else that needs particular tools to survive and make it back from a tough financial situation, needs the allowance to keep those tools. In this case, chapter 12 allows a farmer to continue to have some of those tools of production in order to keep farming and reorganizing. I think it is important that we note, to be eligible producers must be a family farm. That is characterized under current law by a debt not to exceed $1.5 million, not less than 80 percent of the debt related to agricultural activity, and they must have over 50 percent of their individual gross income from agriculture and their farming operation. I am pleased that the chairman and this body is taking action on this legislation today. With less than a month to go before expiration, time is very short. I encourage as strongly as I might the other Chamber to move ahead on this legislation and get it to the President. I realize that many of us would prefer to see chapter 12 extended for a longer period of time or even made permanent. I trust that as the general bankruptcy reform debate is debated, a permanent fix for chapter 12 can be accomplished. In the interim, this legislation is needed to assure producers that this risk management tool is available to them. Again, I thank both sides of the aisle and the chairman for moving ahead.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a moment on Social Security. I think we are moving ahead very quickly. The challenge is still that the Democrats and the Republicans should not demagogue our efforts to try to save Social Security. A decision was made last week with the Republicans that we are going to set aside 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. I have a bill that I introduced last January. I invite the cosponsorship of Republicans and Democrats. Let me just briefly tell my colleagues what that bill does. It says that we are going to lower the public debt. We are going to pay off the debt to the public for every dollar that comes in in surplus from Social Security until we use that money, the Social Security surplus, to save Social Security. It is important that we move ahead, and it is important that we work together in a bipartisan effort.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and lament the passing of Mr. Terry ``Ted'' Oliver, a true hero and selfless contributor to the community of Eaton Rapids, MI. Mr. Oliver was assistant fire chief and a proud member of Eaton Rapids' volunteer fire department. His family, fellow fire fighters, and the community as a whole all suffered a profound loss when Ted died fighting a residential fire on the 19th of this past month. Fire fighters like Ted risk their lives each day to protect our lives, homes, businesses, and belongings. Ted Oliver undertook this duty for 33 years. During this time he developed a reputation for being a dedicated, selfless, mentor and friend. He was always enthusiastic about donating his time and energy to the fire department, but his contributions did not end there. Eaton Rapids also remembers Ted as a local humanitarian and Good Samaritan. He was well known as a generous neighbor who would shovel driveways, wash windows, and fix anything from bicycles to automobiles for members of the community who needed his assistance. He is survived by Carol, his wife of 38 years, 4 children, 14 grandchildren, and an entire community that mourns his loss. Dozens of fire trucks and hundreds of mourners attended Ted's February 22 memorial service to pay their respects and honor the life of this local hero. I myself was honored to visit the National Firefighters' Memorial this past Monday, where Ted's name was posted and the flag was lowered in his honor. Today, I rise before this Congress of the United States of America, to likewise honor and pay tribute to the life of this great and beloved citizen. I believe Mr. Richard Freer, Eaton Rapids' fire chief, best expressed the thoughts of the department and the community with the words, ``We can put someone in his place, but we'll never replace him.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for organizing this one-hour session. When I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, I want you all to feel free to respond. Mr. Speaker, let me just give my impression of what has happened, how it happened, and maybe what we have to look forward to. In 1995, Republicans took the majority in this House, the U.S. House of Representatives. After being a minority for 40 years, we came in quite aggressively trying to promote the philosophy on what we thought was going to be good for our future and for our kids and our grandkids. We decided, with a great deal of determination, that we were going to balance the budget. We cut out $70 billion of projected spending that first year, in 1995. We pledged among ourselves that we were going to be very frugal in cutting down the size of this government in order to balance our budget, in order to not pass on the debt of this country to our kids and our grandkids. I am a farmer. Where we grew up in Addison, Michigan, our goal was to pay off the farm so we could leave the farm to our kids, so they had a better chance of making it and surviving. We should do the same thing as a country. We were successful. The only reason that we went from a $300 billion deficit projected for as far as we could see, $200 billion on out, was that we became very frugal in slowing down the increase in spending. Now we have succeeded. We have an overall unified budget surplus. Most all of that is coming from the social security surplus. The question is, what do we do now? If part of the goal is to have a smaller, less intrusive government, should we reduce taxes? Should we pay down this $5.5 trillion debt? Should we somehow make the adjustments into capital investments, hopefully in individuals' names for social security, to start solving the social security problem? Let me tell the Members what I think the fear is as Republicans try to make these tough decisions. The fear is that if we do not get this money, if you will, extra money out of town, the spenders, the tax and spenders, are going to use it for expanded government spending. Just a comment on the President's budget. He is suggesting over $100 billion of increased spending, almost $100 billion over the caps that we passed in 1997 for increased spending. We could say that is coming out of the social security surplus, because that is where it is coming from. What do we do? If we could be guaranteed that the spenders that want a bigger government, that want to tell the people of this country how they should act and where they should go and how they should do it by increasing the taxes and taking the money out of their pockets, if I could be convinced that we could hold the line on spending and the growth of this intrusive government, then I say the first choice is to pay down the public debt. Not only does that increase the economy by reducing interest rates, but I think there is a danger of the spenders saying, look, we need this money for all of these good things, and therefore we are going to reach into that pot, if you will, of social security trust fund money and start spending it like they have for the last 40 years. So let us look at a balance. Let us say that everything coming in from social security should be saved for social security. One way to do that is to pay down the debt. Hopefully we will have the guts, the intestinal fortitude, to move ahead on social security. But let us also look at the other general fund surpluses to put that money back where it came from, in the pockets of this country's taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, that is sort of my speech. I think the challenge is really ahead of us. I just encourage, Mr. Speaker, everybody that is listening to contact their Congressman, contact their United States Senator, to give them your ideas and thoughts as we move ahead. The danger is that this government is going to continue to grow, it is going to continue to be more intrusive, it is going to continue to be a weight or a burden on economic expansion and development.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 882. Natural disasters and low commodity prices have forced many farmers and ranchers to seek government loans to cover operating and ownership expenses. In fact, in many states, funds available for these USDA programs have already been exhausted, creating a credit crunch at a time when these loans are absolutely necessary to cover producers expenses. H.R. 882 will immediately make available to the Secretary of Agriculture $450 to $500 million in unused funds in order to guarantee loans to farmers and ranchers. These unused funds are currently set aside for the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers program but were not to be available until April 1. Because it is not anticipated that these funds will ever be used by this program it makes sense to have them available for those most in need. This bill requires no new net government outlays and will have no effect on the federal budget. It is a common-sense reaction to the problems facing rural America today and it deserves our full support.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his good words. This resolution is good. All resolutions are good that move us ahead with a commitment to fix this significant problem. I think maybe we will start believing these resolutions and we will do it. But, look, everybody needs to understand it is not easy. A Committee on the Budget staffer just figured out if we put every cent of the surplus into Social Security at a nominal return of 10.5 percent, every cent of the surplus over the next 5 years, it would only keep Social Security solvent until the year 2040. I mean this is a tough question. It is so easy to demagogue. I hope there will be a commitment by both sides of the aisle and the President of the United States to not criticize parts of the program as we try to move ahead with a very serious effort to make a solution. I would ask the Democrats to give us their ideas and their proposals that can be scored to keep Social Security solvent and, likewise, Republicans do the same, to try to seriously move ahead with saving a very important program.