Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Henry B. Dawson, a proud native of Battle Creek, Michigan. Henry will be retiring from the Defense Information Systems Agency after sixteen years of government service, the last four of which he spent away from his home and family. Henry moved to the Washington metro area as a result of workforce reductions at the Defense Logistics Agency in Battle Creek and plans to return to Michigan as soon as possible. Henry has been described by his colleagues as, ``an outstanding employee with the highest moral and ethical standards who represents his agency with a focus always riveted on what is best for the taxpayer.'' He will be missed. Henry Dawson, ``Hank'' to his friends, graduated in June of 1960 from Western Michigan University with a Bachelor of Business Administration. He then began work on his Masters. Henry is a past President of the Battle Creek Big Brothers and Big Sisters and has held officer positions in both the Battle Creek Goodwill industries and the Exchange Club. His civic involvement includes working in an advisory capacity for Collage Community College and the Calhoun Area Vocational Center. I understand he plans on continuing his civi involvement upon returning to Michigan. I personally admire Henry Dawson for his years of dedicated federal service and his involvement in many civic activities. I am grateful he plans on returning to Battle Creek. This dedication to his hometown is an element of strength and character to be appreciated.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Budget has been hearing testimony from Jacob Lew, the Office of Management and Budget Director. I think there are some portions of the President's budget that America should be very aware of. Number one, the budget substantially increases spending and the size of government, and, therefore, the opportunity to control more of our individual lives. The President's budget breaks the budget caps that the budget and this Congress agreed to two years ago this coming spring. In the year ending in 2000, there is a $17 billion expenditure in excess of those discretionary caps that we imposed during the balanced budget resolution. I am concerned because the discipline of reaching the goal of balancing the budget of the Federal Government and the discipline that that has allowed us, encouraging us individually and collectively to do what was necessary in slowing down the growth of government, has resulted in very strong, good rewards. We now have a surplus. In 1995, when the majority control changed hands in this body, we were looking at $200 billion deficits every year for the foreseeable future. Last year we had a surplus of about $70 billion. This year we are looking at a surplus that could be $10 billion higher, maybe more. But, again, we need to remind ourselves that this surplus comes from the extra taxes that workers are paying for Social Security. In other words, we are taking that surplus that is being sent in to support Social Security and using some of that money, some of that surplus, for other spending, but, even so, we still have an overall unified budget surplus. I think it is interesting that just last week the Congressional Budget Office came out with their economic projections. In their economic projections, they said if we stay with the current caps on spending that we imposed on the balanced budget resolution about two years ago, we would not have to increase the national debt of this country, the debt limit for the national debt of this country. Let me say that again: Currently the debt that somehow our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay back, the national debt of this country, is $5.5 trillion. The debt limit, and Congress is responsible to decide how deep we should be going in debt, the current debt limit legislation allows us to go in debt up to $5.95 trillion. I would hope that we do not exceed that. I would hope that we do not obligate our kids and grandkids. I am also concerned about the President's proposal because it increases taxes $108 billion over five years. Do you remember last year, this side of the aisle, the Republicans, suggested that we have a $10 billion tax cut. There was great anxiety on the part of many, saying that was too much of a tax cut. But, again, this budget that the President has just sent us increases taxes by $108 billion. I include fee increases as part of that tax increase, because really fees are in effect real taxes. There is $82 billion technically in taxes and $26 billion in fees. I am concerned that the budget reduces money for research. Look, the rest of the world is gaining on us. They are trying to learn how to produce as efficiently as we are. We have got strong challenges for the future. It means not only should we be frugal in not allowing government to grow, reducing our debt, the overall debt of this country, so interest rates will stay low, so that we can encourage economic development and the strength of our economy, but it also means we have to be on the cutting edge of research. I hope as we move ahead on this budget resolution, we will continue to be frugal in cutting out waste in the Federal Government and also we will be looking at prioritizing existing spending to maximize the chance that we can stay ahead of the rest of the world in terms of productivity and competitiveness and ultimately maintain our standard of living.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the President for his decision to tackle the social security issue in his tonight's State of the Union Address. I welcome his leadership on this critical issue, and I look forward to his proposal that I hope is complete and that can be scored by the Social Security Administration actuaries in a way that will keep social security solvent. I am encouraged that the President has recognized the power of the capital markets to increase the return on social security taxes, and that he specifically is suggesting investments in the stock market. I urge the President to let workers own these investments themselves, rather than have government use and spend these revenues, as they have the social security trust fund. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no relation between the taxes that a worker pays and what the worker is entitled to receive in benefits when they retire. This means that worker-owned accounts are the only way to make sure workers benefit from these investments, rather than government.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reports today indicate that the Office of Management and Budget is estimating that there will be a $4.5 trillion surplus over the next 15 years. I think that is a tribute to the efforts of this Chamber, of the Senate, and of the President to work at reducing the expenditures of the Federal Government. It is also a tribute to the tremendous market-oriented system of free enterprise that we have in this country, where business has decided to expand and offer more job opportunities which has resulted in a lower unemployment rate in this country. I am particularly interested that reports show that the President is suggesting that $2.8 trillion be dedicated to social security. The question over the next several months is whether or not the President is willing to offer this Congress a proposal that can be scored by the Social Security Administration and their actuaries as keeping social security solvent. It has been all too easy in the past for politicians in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and the President to tweak at the fringes while indicating that we have to save social security. The fact that there have been surpluses coming in from the social security tax indicates that American workers are being overtaxed for social security benefits and contributions to the theoretical trust fund. I say ``theoretical trust fund'' because it really does not exist. When it becomes time sometime in the area between 2007 and 2013 that there are less revenues coming in from social security taxes than is needed to pay benefits, the Federal Government has three choices: We can borrow more from the public, we can reduce existing expenditures to come up with the additional money needed to pay benefits, or we can increase taxes on workers. In the past, many times when there is shortage of money, we have simply increased the tax on American workers. Since 1971, Mr. Speaker, taxes, social security taxes, on working Americans have been increased 36 times. More often than once a year we have increased those taxes. Now I want to come back to the word ``surplus.'' The surplus coming in from the Social Security Trust Fund, in certain respects, can be considered taxing those workers for more than is necessary to meet the benefits. So I think there is merit in saying to the American workers, we are going to give some of that money back to them, that they have been paying more than what is needed to pay those benefits. I think when the President suggests that some of those monies be invested in the capital market, that is consistent with what many of us have been suggesting for the last several years; that we need to increase the return on the investment from the tax money coming in from Social Security. We have a great opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to move ahead with truly saving social security. It should not be just verbiage that is politically popular, it should make tough decisions to come up with a social security bill that can be scored by the actuaries to keep social security solvent over this next 100 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look at the serious matters of social security and of medicare and to take this opportunity of surpluses coming in to this government as an opportunity to fix those two important programs.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment today to recognize a retiring political leader from my district. Mr. Timothy ``Tim'' L. Walberg, State Representative, because of Michigan's term limits law, will retire at the end of this year after 16 years of service to the people of Michigan. Representative Walberg represented the 57th District, which included nearly all of Lenawee County, Michigan. Tim most recently served on the Advanced Technology and Computer Development Committee, the Colleges and Universities Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Conservation, Environment, and Recreation Committee. Mr. Walberg has not always been an elected public official. Tim was the Pastor of Union Gospel Church in Tipton for almost 5 years. Previously, he was Co-Pastor of Grace Fellowship Church in New Haven, Indiana for about 4 years. He received his training at the Moody Bible Institute and Taylor University in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He also received a Master of Arts degree, with honors, from Wheaton College Graduate School in Communications. He was elected to the Michigan State House of Representatives in the 1982 election. Representative Walberg has been involved in a number of civic groups including the Tecumseh Kiwanis Club, the Lenawee County Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Family Foundation Board of Directors, the Lenawee County Riding for the Handicapped Committee, Trenton Hills United Brethren Church, Lenawee Habitat for Humanity, District Committee Member and Chaplain--Boy Scouts of America, the National Rifle Association, and Pheasants Forever. His political and legislative memberships have included the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) National Task Force on Education, the Michigan and Lenawee County Republican Parties, and the National Republican Legislators Association. Representative Walberg and his wife, Susan, live in Tipton, Michigan. They have three children, Matthew, Heidi, and Caleb. Their family dog, Sadie, is a special member of their family as well. Tim loves fly fishing, hunting, and riding his motorcycles. I am sure his retirement from public service will give him more time to pursue these loves and spend more time with his family. Public service has its challenges and it sometimes requires sacrifice. In all that he has accomplished throughout his distinguished career of public service, Tim Walberg handled his public duties with honor, generosity, and integrity. As a former state legislator myself, I know that Tim's contributions will be sorely missed in Lansing. I am confident, however, that Tim will continue to use his many talents to enrich our state and its people. On behalf of the people of Michigan, I am honored to recognize and thank Tim Walberg for his outstanding contributions to public service and the state of Michigan.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment today to recognize the long and distinguished career of State Representative Donald ``Don'' H. Gilmer. Representative Gilmer, serving his 11th term, represents a large portion of Calhoun County, Michigan, in my district. Term limits require Representative Gilmer to end his remarkable contributions to Michigan public policy as a member of the State House. Don graduated from Kellogg High School in Hickory Corners, Michigan. He attended Michigan State University and Western Michigan University. He was a Kellogg Fellow at Michigan State from 1968 to 1971. Representative Gilmer was a member of the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners from 1973 to 1974, and served as Vice Chairman in 1974. He was elected to the Michigan Legislature in the 1974 election. He most recently served as Minority Vice Chairman of the Michigan House of Representative's Appropriations Committee. On the Appropriations Committee he also served as Vice Chairman of the Higher Education and the Consumer and Industry Services Subcommittees. Don has been a member of the Interstate Migrant Education Council since 1985. He also has been a member of the Department of Education's Michigan School Finance Commission, the House of Representative's Ad Hoc Special Committee on Property Tax and School Finance, and the House Republican Task Force on Property Tax and School Finance Reform. In April of 1993, Representative Gilmer was appointed to the Midwestern Higher Education Commission. Representative Gilmer is a member of countless community groups, and is especially active with the Michigan Farm Bureau, the Michigan Association for Retarded Citizens, and Planned Parenthood. He was a Gubernatorial appointee to the Michigan Agricultural Labor Commission. Don has an outstanding reputation as a model legislator who has common sense solutions to complex problems. Mr. Gilmer was born in Battle Creek, Michigan on November 29, 1945. Don married Lynn Weimeister November 19, 1988. Don is the father of three children and lives in Augusta. Michigan on his family's apple orchid, Hillcrest, which he formerly co-owned and operated. The work of public service has many rewards. But it also requires many sacrifices. Throughout his tenure as representative. Don Gilmer never lost his warmth, generosity, and good humor. He is the very model of the type of legislator we should have in our state capitals. On behalf of the people of Michigan, it is my privilege to honor and recognize Don Gilmer for his distinguished contributions to Michigan and its people.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment today to recognize Mr. Dan Christie, owner of Christie Construction, for his work on the ``House That Congress Built'' project in Charlotte, Michigan. Dan has enthusiastically served as volunteer construction manager and building consultant for several weeks at the construction site and future home located at 521 Monroe. I am proud to say we will dedicate the home this Sunday, December 20, 1998, at 3 p.m. Mr. Christie generously volunteered his construction expertise to patiently and expertly guide volunteers with varying degrees of experience to construct the home. Not only did Dan donate his vast knowledge, but his time and tools too. Families selected to receive a Habitat for Humanity home are required to contribute many hours of their ``sweat equity'' to the construction of their future home. Mr. Christie's sweat equity, his dedication, hard work and long hours, many times getting to the site after working for his own company all day, is what I recognize and honor today. His investment in this home, neighborhood, Charlotte community, Eaton Area Habitat for Humanity, and perhaps most importantly, the lives of the new homeowners, Julie, Hailey and Skyler Hartig, is to be commended. Many of my colleagues have been involved in the construction of a Habitat for Humanity home. This year, I was privileged enough to lend my support to three houses in my district. I could not have attempted to help build these homes without the drive, support and assistance of good people like Mr. Dan Christie. The Honorable Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, perhaps summed it up best when we kicked off the ``House that Congress Built'' project last year, ``When you help a family grow, as well as build a house . . . when you watch the sense of ownership . . . you understand why this is a great program.'' The Theology of the Hammer, a guiding principle of Habitat, is an appropriate way to describe Dan's efforts. This theology emphasizes partnerships, bringing people together from all different social, racial, religious, political and education backgrounds, to work together for a common goal. This was never more apparent than working at the Charlotte home site. People were brought together in the spirit of friendship and teamwork, and personal differences didn't matter. Mr. Christie embodies the spirit of volunteerism and caring and Christian values that drive so many organizations like Habitat for Humanity and allows them to do all the good things they do for others in need in our communities and around the world. Habitat is founded on the conviction that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent, affordable place to live, grow and raise their families. Because of Dan Christie, the Julie Hartig family now has such a place to call home. My wife Bonnie and I would like to offer Dan our most sincere thanks for his dedicated volunteerism and assistance in helping build the Eaton Area Habitat for Humanity's the ``House That Congress Built,'' at 521 Monroe, Charlotte.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment today to recognize Frank M. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald faces term limits and is retiring at the end of this year as State Representative in Michigan's 71st District. Frank served the good people of Eaton County with distinction for 6 terms. Representative Fitzgerald was first elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 1986. From 1992 to 1996 he was the Speaker pro tem of the State House, the second ranking House officer. Frank chaired task forces on drunk driving, illegal drugs, accountability in government, campaign finance, traffic safety, and the Republican Alliance for Safe Neighborhoods to fight crime and make our homes and neighborhoods safer. He was the sponsor of Michigan's first anti-organized crime law and a measure granting prosecuting attorneys the right to appeal judicial decisions. One of Representative Fitzgerald's notable accomplishments was his sponsorship of the zero alcohol tolerance law for drivers under the legal drinking age. Recently he had a bill included in legislation to crack down on repeat drunk drivers. He also was a leader to limit youth access to tobacco products. He worked diligently to protect children from abuse by creating three degrees of ``child mistreatment.'' Frank also voted repeatedly to cut taxes and ease homeowners' property tax burdens with the passage of Proposal A. Fitzgerald helped revise Michigan's Single Business Tax to help businesses save millions of dollars and create more jobs. He supported welfare reforms to encourage personal responsibility, not dependency on the state. He also supported legislation giving school boards and parents more control over the curriculum of their local schools. Representative Fitzgerald worked to establish a legislative ethics commission and a code of conduct for legislators. Frank is a graduate of Grand Ledge, Michigan Public Schools, the College of William and Mary, and the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan. He and wife, Ruth, and their two children, Ellen and John, reside in Grand Ledge. The Fitzgerald family is active in Grand Ledge's First Congregational United Church of Christ, the Girl Scouts, and youth athletic and music activities. Prior to his election, he practiced law and served as an Assistant Prosecuting attorney in Eaton County, Michigan for three years. For now, this is the end of a long tradition of Fitzgeralds serving the citizens of Michigan as elected representatives. For over 100 years, a Fitzgerald has served in Michigan government. It started with State Representative, John Fitzgerald in the 1890's. His son, Frank D. Fitzgerald, served as Michigan's Secretary of State and went on to be elected Governor of Michigan twice. His son, John W. Fitzgerald, served in the State Senate, on the Court of Appeals, and then as Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Representative Frank M. Fitzgerald, whom I am honoring today, is the fourth generation of Fitzgerald's in public service. I supported Frank Fitzgerald as a candidate for Attorney General of Michigan. I still believe that he might someday make a wonderful Attorney General for our state and I know he will continue to serve the people in any way he can. On behalf of the citizens of Michigan, it is my privilege to honor and recognize Frank Fitzgerald, an outstanding American who served his state with great distinction.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment today to recognize Mr. Jerry Lockman for his work on the ``House That Congress Built'' project in Charlotte, Michigan. Jerry dutifully served as volunteer construction manager and building consultant for the first several weekends of this home located at 521 Monroe, Charlotte. He was largely responsible for its quick framing and roofing and I am proud to say we will dedicate this new home this Sunday, December 20, 1998, at 3 p.m. Mr. Lockman generously volunteered his construction expertise to guide volunteers with varying degrees of experience to construct the home. Not only did Jerry donate his vast knowledge, but his time and tools too. Families selected to receive a Habitat for Humanity home are required to contribute many hours of their ``sweat equity'' to the construction of their future home. Mr. Lockman's sweat equity, his dedication, hard work and long hours are what I recognize and honor today. His investment in this home, neighborhood, Charlotte community. Eaton Area Habitat for Humanity, and perhaps most importantly, the lives of the new homeowners, Julie, Hailey and Skyler Hartig, is to be commended. Many of my colleagues have been involved in the construction of a Habitat for Humanity home. This year, I was privileged enough to lend my support to three houses in my district. I could not have attempted to help build these homes without the drive, support and assistance of good people like Mr. Jerry Lockman. The Honorable Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, perhaps summed it up best when we kicked off the ``House that Congress Built'' project last year. ``When you help a family grow, as well as build a house-- when you watch the sense of ownership--you understand why this is a great program.'' The Theology of the Hammer, a guiding principle of Habitat, is an appropriate way to describe Jerry's efforts. This theology emphasizes partnerships, bringing people together from all different social, racial, religious, political and education backgrounds, to work together for a common goal. This was never more apparent than working at the Charlotte home site. People were brought together in the spirit of friendship and teamwork, and personal differences didn't matter. Mr. Lockman embodies the spirit of volunteerism and caring that fuel so many organizations like Habitat for Humanity, allowing them to do all the good things they do for others in need in our communities and around the world. Habitat is founded on the conviction that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent, affordable place to live, grow and raise their families. Because of Jerry Lockman and others, the Julie Hartig family now has such a place to call home. My wife Bonnie and I would like to offer Jerry our most sincere thanks for his dedicated volunteerism and assistance in helping build the Eaton Area Habitat for Humanity's the ``House That Congress Built,'' at 521 Monroe, Charlotte.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment today to recognize the following caring and generous folks who, in one way or another, contributed to the Eaton Area Habitat for Humanity's ``House That Congress Built'' project in Charlotte, Michigan: Kebs, Inc., Larry Clark companies, Fannie Mae, Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Larry Bowen/Silk Screen Stuff, Construction Managers Jerry Lockman and Dan Christie/Christie Construction, Fulton Lumber, Wolohan Lumber, Dave and Lorraine Green, and Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Co. Reliant/Care-free Windows, Lumbertown Citizens Lumber, Wickes Lumber, Fox Brothers Co., Kane Heating & Ventilation, Hedlund Plumbing, T.A. Gentry, Plumber Trent Mauk, B & D Electric, A-C Electric, and Drakes Insulation. Larry's Floor Covering & Paint Spot, Larry Ruyston, M.P.C. Cashway Lumber Co., Parker Built Homes, The Kitchen Shop, Consumers Energy, Williams Carpet, M & M Concrete, Concrete Cutting & Breaking, Inc., Crandell Bros., Trucking, and Gale Briggs, Inc. Builders Redi Mix, Ackerson & Son Excavating, Granger, GM Cleaning, Floyd Jewel & Eaton Federal Savings Bank, Lansing Automakers Federal Credit Union, Lansing Community Credit Union, Ann Garvey & the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, Eaton County United Way, Greater Lansing Home Builders Association, and Pastor Fleming & Lawrence United Methodist Church. Pastor Hall-Neimann & Peace Lutheran Church, Leroy Hummel & City of Charlotte, Alro Steel, Mulvaney Building & Remodeling, Nolan, Thomsen, Villas & Sural, PC, Linda Rybicki, Felpausch Food Center, Quality Dairy, Carter's Food Center, Pizza Hut, Riedy's Pizza, and Little Ceasar's Pizza. These individuals made an invaluable investment in this home, neighborhood, Charlotte community, Eaton Area Habitat for Humanity, and perhaps most importantly, the lives of the new homeowners, Julie, Hailey and Skyler Hartig. I am proud to say we will dedicate the home this Sunday, December 20, 1998, at 3 p.m., just in time for the family to move into their new home for the holidays. The Honorable Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, perhaps summed it up best when we kicked off the ``House that Congress Built'' project last year, ``When you help a family grow, as well as build a house . . . when you watch the sense of ownership . . . you understand why this is a great program.'' Many of my colleagues have been involved in the construction of a Habitat for Humanity home. This year, I was privileged to lend my support to three houses in my district, but never could have helped build these homes without this support, assistance and generosity. Habitat is founded on the conviction that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent, affordable place to live, grow and raise their families. Because of the contributions of the above-mentioned individuals, churches, businesses and organizations, Julie and her children, Hailey and Skyler, now have such a place to call home. My wife Bonnie and I thank all of these wonderful people who played an integral role in building the Eaton Area Habitat for Humanity's ``House That Congress Built,'' at 521 Monroe, Charlotte.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the President's guilt in this matter is undisputed. Even the Democratic-sponsored censure resolution states that he has violated the trust of the American people and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him. Mr. Speaker, we should not let the President off free for his egregious conduct. We should not use the excuse of military conflict. We should not use the excuse that some prefer censure. Impeachment in the House is the constitutional method of censure. Impeachment will ensure that the President's misconduct is treated with the seriousness it deserves. It is the formal judgment by the House that the President has committed crimes that deserve the attention of the Senate. It is an emphatic statement of censure and disapproval and it is constitutional. In this case a vote for impeachment is warranted. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers said that the impeachable offenses are ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men.'' Mr. Speaker. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers that impeachable offenses ``are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' It is clear that the perjury and obstruction of the legal process by the President, who is our foremost law enforcer, does constitute an abuse of his public trust. Mr. Speaker, the President's guilt in this matter is undisputed. Even the Democrat-sponsored censure resolution states that the President ``violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him.'' Some have suggested censure as an alternative to impeachment. A censure resolution without a penalty is insufficient for his felonious misconduct. On the other hand, a strong resolution which includes a fine or other sanction faces a severe Constitutional challenge. The Constitution specifically forbids ``Bills of Attainder''. Thus, any fine imposed on the President via the censure process, even with his consent, could be successfully challenged after the fact. I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are considering a vote against impeachment to reconsider. We should not let the President off free for this egregious conduct. We should not use the excuse of military conflict or the excuse that some may prefer censure. We should do our duty under the Constitution. We should vote for impeachment. Impeachment by the House is the Constitutional method of censure. Impeachment will ensure that the President's misconduct is treated with the seriousness it deserves. It is a formal judgment by the House that the President has committed ''High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' that deserve the attention of the Senate. It is an emphatic statement of censure and disapproval and is Constitutional. In this case, a vote for impeachment is warranted.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, world peace has been jeopardized because of Saddam Hussein's continued reluctance to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. In the past 13 months, the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) has evacuated from Baghdad, in full or in part, four times. These include an incident in November of 1997, when Iraq refused to allow Americans to participate in UNSCOM, a second time when Iraq refused to grant unconditional access to sensitive sites in February of 1998, and the beginning of the most recent crisis in November of 1998 when Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM until yesterday when Ambassador Butler reports that Iraq was not cooperating with UNSCOM. When dealing with a dictator as ruthless and unpredictable as Saddam Hussein, that has developed weapons of mass destruction, it is imperative that the United States take a firm stand and refuse to continue to give ground. The information available to us from the previous inspections and intelligence reports show that Iraq is still working diligently to build an arsenal of weapons. It is my firm belief that the military strikes which were launched were necessary to show Iraq that their behavior is unacceptable. I strongly favor this resolution of support for the men and women of our armed forces in and around the Persian Gulf. This Nation must stand as one, despite politics, when we confront terrorists such as Saddam Hussein.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that farmers and agriculture are currently in a very serious plight, and there is no question that much- needed work has been done on bankruptcy reform in the 105th Congress. Our bankruptcy laws are too lenient and have become a source of debt evasion rather than a means of equitably resolving differences between debtors and creditors. While we have been hammering out an agreement, one important issue got lost in the shuffle. Bankruptcy relief for farmers has been allowed to expire during the period of severe hardship for American farmers. American farmers are going to be losing this year between 10 and 20 percent of their income, over $8 billion, as a drop in farm income. Some farmers have been and are going to be forced into bankruptcy. There has been a problem of weather, of disease, of low commodity prices, of a loss of Asian markets. What we need to do is we need immediate action to ensure that the chapter 12 reorganization is restored to American producers as soon as possible. Both the chairman and the ranking member also have felt that this is important. Chapter 12 expired on September 30 of this year. Enacted during the 1986 farm crisis, chapter 12 made significant bankruptcy relief available to a group of Americans that has difficulty in getting credit and managing their assets since the country's founding, and of course that is the American farmers. Specifically, it opened many of the advantages of chapter 13 filings to farmers who were, for the most part, too indebted to take advantage of chapter 13 and had to use other less advantageous provisions of the bankruptcy code. For example, chapter 7 was accessible to farmers to give them some of the, if you will, fresh start promise to debtors under the bankruptcy code. But under chapter 7, the farm which might have been in the family for generations was usually lost. Congress needed to find a way to ensure that creditors are protected while at the same time being able to maintain that family farm. I understand that chapter 12 may need some changes. Both the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) and Senator Grassley, the father of chapter 12, have proposed changing chapter 12 in various ways. It may well be that chapter 12 should be changed, but this needed provision to extend it from the current sunset of last October 1 needs not to lapse. Currently, we are in the midst of another crisis in the saga of the American farmer. The weather, the disease, the devastated crops, export markets shrinking, commodity prices at historic lows, changes to chapter 12 can and must be maintained. It is unacceptable to allow the desire for reform to prevent the renewal of this program in this time of need for the American agriculture. My bill, H.R. 4831, would extend the chapter 12 provisions so that we can debate needed changes in a period of less urgence for farmers. This legislation that makes the farmer provisions of chapter 12 retroactive to last October 1st is supported by the Senate and the administration. I hope all my colleagues will join me today in passing this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I just came from our Republican Conference talking about what is in this omnibus appropriation bill. The good news is that when we think of what might have happened with the tax-and-spend presidency, with the tax-and-spend Democrats, what would have happened if Democrats were in control of this Chamber not fighting to make sure that we did not reach into the surpluses that we have for additional spending. What we have accomplished since the Republicans took the majority 4 years ago is a tremendous reduction in deficit spending. The unified budget deficit 4 years ago was $210 billion. If we add to that what we were borrowing from the Social Security trust fund, then it came to about $160 billion, more deficit at that time than we have this year. We actually paid down the debt to the public this past year by $60 billion. We expect that this current fiscal year, the 1999 fiscal year, we will reduce the debt to the public, the public debt, by an additional $62 billion. It is not as good as it should be. We are still borrowing some of that money from the Social Security trust fund for other spending. I wish my colleagues would join me in cosponsoring my bill that stops the government from borrowing this money and leaving simple IOUs. Look, the point is that we have got a good start. We have got a smaller deficit by $260 billion than we had 4 years ago. If we look at what happened when I first came to this Congress in 1993, the frustration of a Democrat majority and a presidency that increased taxes on senior citizens, on gasoline, and so most Republicans voted against it, most every Democrat voted for it, and we have been trying to turn that around ever since. Now the goals of this Congress, with a majority of Republicans, I think is twofold. I think we are looking at traditional family values. There is not a lot that government can do about traditional family values, but, look, there are some things we can do. The marriage penalty tax. We can set an example. We can encourage neighborhoods to get involved. And that is what we are trying to do with our drug program. We have expanded money for drug control in this Congress with this budget that we expect to pass in the next 48 hours. Drugs are disrupting education. Drugs are one of the major causes of crime. And we are saying that, look, we are going to be serious about an all-out war on drugs. I think as we look at our challenges ahead for the future, certainly we have got to put a priority on trying to deal with the fiscal problem of Social Security and Medicare. Those are two huge challenges that we have got to face up to. I am concerned about the politics that is being played with those items during this election year. I would just suggest, Mr. Speaker, to everybody out there that might be listening to this program to brace up for the last two weeks of this campaign, as there is going to be a lot of misleading and false information out there that suggests that one side of the aisle cares less about balancing the budget or more than the other side, that one side cares less or more about Social Security and Medicare. Our two biggest fiscal problems are Social Security and Medicare that we have got to deal with. I think on the domestic side, we need to look at traditional family values. We need to give the kind of priority to education that this appropriation bill gives, as we have expanded over and above what the President requested for the programs for the slow learners, for the special program education money that goes into IDEA, because hopefully both sides of the aisle will give the kind of priority to education, will give the kind of priority to reducing crime that this particular appropriation bill does that we will pass in the next two days.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I rise before you today to honor Gary Gray, a constituent of mine from Adrian, Michigan whose accomplishments and accolades are many. Mr. Gray is the recipient of the Lenawee County Chamber of Commerce 1998 Small Business Person of the Year Award. This distinguished honor is bestowed upon those individuals who have not only created and guided successful businesses but have made an even greater contribution through their selfless giving to those in their community. Gary Gray, a nationally recognized physical therapist, grew up in the city of Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Upon graduating from the University of Indiana in 1976, he began his professional career as Director of Physical Therapy at Bixby Hospital in Adrian, Michigan. He continues to enjoy Adrian as his home. In 1986 Gary opened the doors of Gary Gray Physical Therapy Clinic, Inc. in Adrian with two employees. Nearly thirteen years later this thriving company has grown into three sites employing 35 employees. Upon realizing the critical need this country has for continuing education in rehabilitation, he began Wynn Marketing, Inc. in 1988. Through the years, Wynn Marketing has produced 95 seminars throughout the nation, presenting innovative, practical and enlightening rehabilitation seminars to over 10,000 physical therapists, athletic trainers, orthopedic physicians and chiropractors. The closeness of his family life is revealed in the fact that his mother and father are the hosts and coordinators of these seminars. Gary continues to be a consultant to various college and professional athletic teams around the country as well as educational institutions. He is the author of several published articles and manuals on rehabilitation and prevention. Recognized by various physical therapy schools around the nation, many of these are required reading in the physical therapy curriculum. Recognized as a successful inventor of rehabilitation equipment, Gary opened the doors of Functional Designs in 1997. The purpose of this company is to develop and market many of Gary's inventors i.e. the Golf Gazebo, the Stretch Frame and the Pyramid Strider. Gary Gray consistently supports community projects, especially those involving youth. He developed the ``Hot Rock'' boys basketball camp in 1989. This two week summer camp of basketball ministry combines the unique blend of both sport and Christ in the lives of the youth today. This past summer's Hot Rock was enjoyed by over 120 young boys and remains fully sponsored by Gary. Realizing the need was also there for the young girls of the community, Gary developed ``Girls of Summer'' in 1995. Over 70 girls were ministered to this past summer, again combining the blend of basketball and Christ. Beginning his 5th year as the assistant varsity basketball coach at Lenawee Christian High School is one of the positions Gary holds most dear. His love of Christ and family is prevalent to all who know him. His lovely wife of 22 years, Cindi, is also known as an excellent speaker and leader in the community. He has two wonderful sons of whom he is very proud: Brad, a freshman at Cornerstone College and Doug, a junior at Lenawee Christian High School. I want to commend Gary Gray for all of his achievements. He truly is deserving of the Lenawee Chamber of Commerce's Small Business Person of the Year Award.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there are more and more people that are becoming aware that the so called ``Jones Act'' is unfair to American producers and consumers. A Wall Street Journal editorial on the Jones Act, A Washington Tale (Oct. 5, 1998), is right on target. This 1920's law, which requires that all cargo transported from one U.S. port to another (even via a foreign port) travel on vessels built in the U.S., is protectionism at its worst. No other mode of domestic transportation operates under such stringent rules and no law prohibits our foreign competitors from using lower cost international ships when they export to our market. Because the Jones Act fleet is so small (down from 2,500 oceangoing ships in 1945 to less than 120 today) many American businesses are unable to access deep-sea ships at any cost. Quite literally, today, the only people who can't ship to Americans are other Americans. The sterile national security arguments (refuted so well in the Journal's editorial), are used as a bludgeon when any discussion of reforming the Jones Act arises. It seems that whenever we get close to making some headway, the siren call of ``national security'' is raised to stifle all debate. The real story of the Jones Act is that it benefits a few protected ship operators at the expense of everyone else. I have yet to discover an economist who'll defend the law. The benefits of the Jones Act are based on myth and wishful thinking. The British news journal, The Economist, in their October 3rd edition stated that the United States is ``paying dearly for the Jones Act'' which has ``pushed freight rates to between twice and four times what they would be under free trade.'' (Pg. 14, Survey of World Trade) Mr. Speaker, I include as part of my remarks the editorial: [From the Wall Street Journal, Monday, Oct. 5, 1998] Review & Outlook--A Washington Tale ``Accountability'' is now being much talked about, not only as an admirable civic virtue, but as an indispensable lubricant to a functioning global economy. Without it, you get Indonesia. But the next time a foreign official is getting lectured by someone from the U.S. Treasury, let them pull out the following tale of how the American political system looks when its own accountability completely disappears. Our story starts on Kodiak Island, Alaska. There's a fellow there named Ben Thomas who owns a logging company. Mr. Thomas would like to sell his logs in the mainland U.S., but he can't get them to market at a good price. In fact, he says that it's cheaper to send his logs to Korea than it is to send them to Olympia, Washington. Even if he wanted to pay the outrageous shipping prices, Mr. Thomas says, during good markets the ships are often not available. Unless you're in the ship business, or have to use U.S. ships like Ben Thomas, you probably have never heard of the 78-year-old Jones Act. The beneficiaries of the ancient Jones Act like it that way. What you don't know can't hurt them. Mr. Thomas' problem is that by law, he must use a ``Jones Act'' ship to send his logs anywhere in the U.S. The 1920 Jones Act stipulates that maritime commerce within the U.S. must be limited to U.S. flagships that are U.S. built, U.S. owned and operated and manned by U.S. crew. While Mr. Thomas can't get his logs to Olympia, Canadian lumber companies can ship their logs to the U.S. at world market prices on state- of-the-art ships. Obviously this undermines U.S. competitiveness at home. Senator John McCain held hearings recently on the Freedom to Transport Act, a timid attempt to reform the pernicious Jones Act. The Ben Thomas story is the same for producers in many other industries--oil, agriculture, steel, coal, automobiles, to name but a few. Thanks to the Jones Act, the U.S. today has a downsized, overpriced ship-building industry, a small and aging maritime fleet--the oldest in the industrialized world--and a wildly distorted shipping network that is reminiscent of the U.S. auto industry before Japanese competition; the customer comes last. Midwestern farmers are screaming about grain sitting on the ground because of a ship shortage and pig farmers in the South are instead buying their grain from Canada. Shipping as a share of the transportation industry is sharply down. The nation's railways are backed up and the highway system is unable to absorb the fallout. The Freedom to Transport Act is hardly radical. It would leave in place most of Jones's protection, but its main provision allows those ships over 1,000 tons, carrying bulk cargo, to be built outside the U.S. This may seem a small matter, but the U.S. needs cheap ships before it can have competitive shipping. Forget about foreign competition; as it stands now, the domestic shipping industry has enormous barriers to entry for potential domestic entrants because of the high price of ships. According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, the U.S. has only 120 self-propelled vessels over 1,000 tons; this is down from 2,500 at the end of World War II. During the Gulf War, President Bush had to suspend the Jones Act to move petroleum supplies. Yet ironically, national security has been the main rationale for maintaining the Jones Act. U.S.-built commercial ships are so outrageously expensive that shipping companies have practically ceased ordering them. Rather than order high priced deep-water ships, many U.S. companies have taken instead to using integrated tug barges, a sorry replacement for real ships. Opponents of the new legislation claim that Jones Act shipbuilders help spread the base of military ship-building costs, but the facts suggest the opposite. Rob Quartel, a former U.S. Maritime Commissioner and president of the Jones Act Reform Coalition, cites military builder Newport News Shipyards. Its futile attempt to get back into the commercial ship-building business in 1994 ended with cost overruns and a $330 million loss. It has since abandoned the commercial market. What's clear is that Jones is not about national security; it's about Congressional security. What counts in Washington is that the shipping industry provides politicians with steady, lucrative cash flow. According to a 1995 International Trade Commission study dealing with only ocean-borne cargo and the potential gains from removing the U.S. build requirement. ``The economy-wide effect of removing the Jones Act is a U.S. economic welfare gain of approximately $2.8 billion.'' Of course open competition would eat into the profits of the protected interests. Federal Election Commission records suggest that those profits make their way, in part, back to the pockets of the Jones Act's political protectors. With no accountability, it's like a political annuity. The Journal of Commerce has reported that FEC records show that in the 18 months leading up to the 1996 elections, ``seven maritime unions with about 45,000 members gave nearly $1.8 million to congressional candidates.'' Mr. Quartel says that in 1994, three of the top 10 political action committee givers were maritime related. This explains why, even through the evidence demonstrates the destructiveness of Jones, Congress has never had the stomach to dismantle this antique law. Senator McCain has vowed to hold more hearings, but with the maritime lobby spreading so much money around Washington, he's swimming against the tide. Senator Trent Lott--from the ship- and barge-building state of Mississippi--has testified against the pending legislation. There is a cautionary tale here for our politics. Words like ``shipping'' and ``the Jones Act'' don't get the political juices running. Which is to say that when the press or any other agent of accountability loses interest in a subject, this is what rent-seeking politicians and competition-averse commercial interests will do with it. These are the real fat cats, and right now they're simply getting fatter. I have called on the House Transportation Committee to hold hearings on my bills (H.R. 1991 and H.R. 4236) to reform the Jones Act. It is my hope that the next Congress will seriously consider this important issue.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to caution everybody watching this program, all of the voters in this country to brace yourself for the next couple 3 weeks before the election. Look, I think the proudest moment of this Congress was probably last year when Republicans and Democrats and the President worked together to lower taxes for the first time since Ronald Reagan came in, to balance the budget for the first time in 31 years. But what happens as we get close to an election is the Democrats try to prove that they think education is more important than Republicans. Not true. They try to spin it to make sure or to hopefully make sure that they get more votes in the election. Mr. Speaker, I just ask the American people to brace up, watch the spinning, be careful of what both sides of the aisle says, be careful of what the President says and does in these last few weeks before the election. Listen to these next speakers.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Meredith Bixby from Saline, Michigan. On October 18, 1998, the Saline Culture and Commerce Center will open the Bixby Marionette Exhibit. This exhibit includes over 100 of Meredith Bixby's hand-crafted marionettes which he gave to the City of Saline. Meredith Bixby is affectionately known as the ``Master of Marionettes.'' His company ``Meredith Marionettes Touring Company'' toured the Midwest and South for more than 40 years, performing in schools, theaters and community centers. I personally admire Meredith Bixby because his stated goal was, ``to present programs that we [that is Meredith and his wife Thyra] thought were in good taste.'' This is an element so often missing in theater productions of today. I want to commend Meredith Bixby for his hard work and dedication. It is estimated that in 88 years, he has performed more than 20,000 marionette plays.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Farmers' Advance published in Camden, Michigan. On October 13, 1998, the Farmers' Advance and its precursor, The Camden Advance, will have served rural readers and advertisers for 100 years. As a farmer, I rely on the Farmers' Advance to keep me abreast of the weekly sales and prices of farm commodities, livestock and equipment. I also appreciate the excellent coverage of youth activities in 4-H and FFA shows and sales. In this rapidly changing time, the Farmers' Advance continues to chronicle and celebrate traditional farm family values through its stories and photographs. The Camden Advance was first published in 1898. Lee Graham, publisher and editor, set the type under lamplight and printed the paper on a hand press. In 1953, its name was changed to the Farmers' Advance. Today, the Farmers' Advance reaches readers in every county in Michigan, northern Indiana, northern Ohio, and Ontario, Canada. I want to commend this wonderful publication for its dedication to serving farms and rural areas and promoting farm family values for 100 years.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is common sense in my areas of Michigan, that if you make it too easy to file bankruptcy and discharge your debts, a lot of those lenders are going to have to jack up their interest rates on everybody else to compensate for the money they lose when that debt is discharged. This legislation provides a better balance, a golden mean. I would hope both sides could work together to find compromize so that we don't end up with harder to get loans and higher interest rates as a result of existing law that makes it easy to declare bankruptcy and discharging those debts. I have two bills that are now incorporated in this bankruptcy bill. One is H.R. 4672, the extension of the Section 12 provision for farmers and agriculture; the other is a provision suggested to me by an Eaton County Michigan probate Court official, Tom Robinson. That section does not allow the discharge of debt for child care that would be owed to a local court or municipality. I thank Chairman Gekas for yielding me time and for his perseverance in developing needed reform to our bankruptcy law.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I favor further inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. The issue before us today is straightforward: Do the allegations of possible impeachable offense merit further investigation? Anyone who answers ``no'' and asserts that there should be no further review has a very high burden to meet. I think that the Judiciary Committee's careful, fair and expeditious review of all of the facts in light of the relevant law is precisely the Constitutional duty required of us by our oath of office. I also think that such a review is the duty we owe the American people. Congress has received substantial and credible evidence that the President of the United States repeatedly violated the criminal laws of this country. I believe it would be a dereliction of duty of the highest order for us to decide today that no further review is needed. After meeting with Chairman Hyde, I am convinced that we will move forward fairly, quickly and in a bipartisan manner. I am also troubled by reports that the White House is pressuring Democrats to vote against this inquiry. My office has received over a thousand calls and letters in the past month on this scandal. Additionally, my web page also gives constituents an opportunity to express their views. Eighty percent of the people who have contacted me have urged me to move forward with this investigation. Despite much of the rhetoric, today's final vote only answers one question: Should we investigate the allegations or forget it? Those who vote against the resolution are, in fact, saying that we should just ignore all the allegations against the President and have no further inquiry. I have not decided whether President Clinton has technically committed impeachable offenses. However, I have called for President Clinton's resignation. Whether his actions rise to the level of `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' is still to be determined. The point is that we need to investigate the actions of the President and we need to get this situation behind us as quickly as possible, hopefully by the end of the year. Today's vote marks only the third time in American history that the House has opened an inquiry into possible impeachment of a President. It is a serious vote for all of us, possibly one of the most important votes I will take. I have made the decision to vote yes because I truly believe to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of our country's future.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in the Monday's Wall Street Journal there was an editorial that talked about the Jones Act. The Jones Act is legislation that was passed in the 1920s that is pretty much pure protectionism. It says that only shippers of sea-going vessels that own ships that were built in the United States can ship from one U.S. port to another. Now, we are running into a problem where U.S. shipyards are not building those ships. Especially at this time with the crunch on farmers and low commodity prices and, added to that problem of low prices a lack of transportation, we need to take a serious look at this protectionist law. I hope my colleagues will read the Wall Street Journal editorial that was in Monday's paper. We need to address these tough problems of protectionism that punishes American consumers and American producers. The agricultural economy is reeling under historically low commodity prices coupled with multiple-year disaster and weather related problems, plus the loss of export markets due to the Asian financial crisis. Farm income in my state of Michigan is predicted to be down by 10-20% depending upon the type of farming operation. The last thing American agriculture needs in another market hindrance. Last year, grain and other feedstocks were left on the ground due to a lack of adequate transportation options. All indications suggest we will be faced with the same problem again this year. I understand that USDA and DOT have devised a plan to assist agricultural producers in transporting their goods to market, but the plan does not address a critical aspect of our transportation system that has led us to this problem--the utter lack of deep-sea transportation options available to America's agricultural producers. American ship operators are forced to do business under the restrictions of an archaic 1920's law known as the Jones Act. The Jones Act restricts the transportation of goods from one U.S. port to another (even via a foreign port) to vessels which are built and flagged in the United States and owned and operated by American's. Because U.S. shipyards do not build large commercial ships and operators are unable to import vessels built abroad, there is only one bulk carrier left in the Jones Act fleet. No new bulk carriers are slated to be built in the next five years. What this means is that shippers are unable to transport bulk commodities at reasonable rates along our nation's coasts. There are barges available to some shippers, but they are not competitive for the transportation of bulk commodities. According to agricultural transportation specialists, if only 2% of our nation's agricultural commodities moved by deep-sea transportation, that would be enough to relieve the excess pressure on the railroads. This will never happen until we have common sense reform of the Jones Act. I have introduced H.R. 4236, the Shipping Relief for Agriculture Act, that would allow U.S. ship operators the ability to purchase vessels used for the transportation of bulk commodities on the international market. Repealing the U.S. build requirement for ocean- going, bulk carriers is absolutely necessary if we expect agriculture shippers to be able to transport their products domestically by sea. Jones Act reform is vital to America's agricultural economy and I urge this body to seriously consider this issue.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the assembly today on the subject of the problems facing Michigan farmers and ranchers. The conference report on the 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act helps some of these farmers in facing what is a very, serious problem in this Nation. What we are faced with is a transition of our farmers and ranchers into a new Federal market-oriented, freedom to farm, public policy. That means that subsidies in place for the last 65 years are being phased out. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that this year in particular farmers are facing a combination of disease, bad weather, a loss of our markets, especially in Asia, and extremely low commodity prices. Farmers are going out of business. Bankruptcies are being advertised throughout the United States as farmers have hit disastrous situations where they feel that they and their families and their kids can no longer survive on that particular farm operation. Often a farm operation that was run by their parents, their grandparents, their great-grandparents can no longer provide a living. The 1999 appropriations bills deal with some of these problems but not all of the problems. As we phase out and demand that our farmers in this country go into a market-oriented system, other countries remain steadfast in being very protective to make sure that the farmers and ranchers in their countries can remain on the farm; that their country maintains the farming base in their country, the ability to grow food and fiber in that country so that they have assurance that their country will never have to be dependent on other countries for their food. Our farmers and ranchers in this country not only are facing a smaller market, facing disease and bad weather and the resulting low commodity prices, but are facing an administration which is threatening to impose very restrictive regulations on our farmers that other farmers in other countries do not have to abide by or pay for. For example if one looks at the Food Quality Protection Act an effort of this body, this Congress, to do away with the old Delaney clause, now we see regulations that are being developed by this administration that suggest that we should do away with herbicides and insecticides because they might have some compounded dangerous effect and be carcinogenic if individuals were to eat pounds or tons of these pesticides. Now, here is the problem that this country faces: if we impose these kind of nonscientific global warming, air quality, water quality, herbicide, insecticide regulations on our farmers, and farmers in other countries do not have to abide with those same provisions, that means our farmers are paying huge increased costs. That means by limiting our farmers' ability to farm the same efficient manner as farmers in other nations are farming, it puts our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. We have to be very, very careful, Mr. Speaker, that we do not force some of our farmers and ranchers out of business because of this mandated inefficiency. Our consumers in this country may have to be dependent on the fruits and vegetables and food products that would be imported from other countries. Right now we enjoy the lowest cost, highest quality food of anyplace in the world. That is because our farmers and ranchers are extremely efficient and our system of distribution is very good in terms of providing good services to the consumers. While the rest of the economy is generally strong, Mr. Speaker, farmers in our country are facing one of the most difficult years in a long time. The disaster money that is provided in the 1999 appropriation bill will be available to agricultural producers regardless of the type of crop that they produce and is a modest effort to help. While this will not fully reimburse producers for the extreme losses that they are suffering this year, it will help. But in the long run we have to face up to the question of whether or not we are going to allow our farmers and our ranchers to go out of business. That would mean that our consumers are going to become more and more dependent on imported products. Mr. Speaker, if we want to protect this country's ability to produce high quality, low cost food, we can not force our farmers out of business.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the ``Protect Social Security Account'' developed in H.R. 4578 should increase awareness of the Social Security problem. However, the legislation does nothing to solve the problem. The bill requires the Secretary of Treasury to make annual nonnegotiable ``IOUs'' to this new account each fiscal year from 1998 to 2008. The new government debt owed to this ``Protect Social Security Account'' would equal 90% of the projected total unified budget surplus for each of those fiscal years. In addition, the Treasury will make out IOUs to the Social Security Trust Fund for its annual surplus, as it has done in the past. The Social Security tax revenues surplus, which is the social security taxes in excess of benefit payments for that year, is a major part of any unified budget surplus. This means we are creating a $1.90 in debt for every dollar borrowed in those years that the unified budget surplus is greater then the Social Security surplus. Total government debt will increase faster than if the new account was not established. In other words, the increased debt to the Social Security trust fund will be about $80 billion for the 1998 fiscal year. Because the calculations for government IOUs into the ``Protect Social Security Account'' is 90% of the unified budget surplus in most years, there is double accounting for government indebtedness for the same money. That results in total debt going up faster than it otherwise would. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Congress and the President will have to increase the existing $5.95 trillion in debt ceiling two years earlier if this bill would become law 2001 instead of 2003. Ironically, the more unified budget surplus that is spent by government, the less debt subject to debt limit there would be. There will never be any actual money that is going into this account, just more IOUs. I am voting for the Rangel substitute because it has the effect of investing the Social Security surplus in marketable bonds as does my bill, H.R. 4033. I am voting for H.R. 4578 in the hopes that a future Congress will pay back the debt in the ``Protect Social Security Account'' to help solve the Social Security problem. We should all recognize that by the year 2008 the general fund of the Treasury will owe $2.252 trillion to the Social Security Trust Fund. This does not include the money that will be owed to the new fund. Unless there are sufficient resources in the general fund of the Treasury to repay that borrowing, the ability to pay the promised Social Security benefits will be threatened. The fact is, none of the rhetoric by Republicans or Democrats or the President that we should save the surplus to save Social Security does anything to fix Social Security. The legislation I introduced (H.R. 3082) has been scored by the Social Security actuaries to keep Social Security solvent. Others that have done real work to save Social Security include Representatives Stenholm, Kolbe, Sanford, and Porter, and Senators Moynihan, Kerrey (NE), Gregg, Breaux, Gramm, and Domenici. I applaud all of their efforts. I acknowledge the tremendous increase in awareness that the President has helped stimulate by announcing in his State of the Union address last February that we've got to save Social Security. As Chairman of the bipartisan task force on Social Security, I am setting our first goal to be a discussion of the real facts and the real problem of the current system. Senator Moynihan said during Social Security reform discussions in 1983, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, no one is entitled to his own set of the facts.'' If we can have honest bipartisan discussion of the issue, and if we can increase public understanding, then we can pass real Social Security reform legislation in 1999. That is important, because the longer we put off the resolution, the most drastic the changes will have to be.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my emotions that it is so disconcerting to have Members stand up and say, gosh, let us save Social Security. Why do they not do something to save Social Security instead of just talking about it? We have several bills introduced. The only Member on that side of the aisle, the only Democrat that has come up with a plan to save Social Security is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). On this side of the aisle we have got several others. We have got the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If you do not like any of those bills, why in the world do you not bring over a bill from the Senate? Over in the Senate we have Senator Moynihan, Senator Kerrey, Senator Gregg, Senator Breaux, Senator Gramm, Senator Domenici. Have you looked at any of those bills that would save Social Security? Or do you just want to talk about it? Do you just want to say, hey, let us not have any tax cuts, let us save Social Security. I just urge my colleagues in this House to look at some of this legislation. I introduced my first Social Security bill when I came here in 1993. Then I introduced another bill last session, and H.R. 3082, the last year of this session. Social Security is a huge problem. It is an important program. And you say this, I hear everybody say it, but I see so few do anything about it. If I would have one suggestion, it would be that everybody take this very seriously, that you start looking at the bills that are now proposed and you come up with improvements to that legislation so we can really do it and quit talking about it, because it is an important program that so many people depend on. We developed a program in 1934 that was a pay-as-you-go program, that as you run out of people working, paying their taxes in to provide the benefits for existing retirees, it has developed a huge demographic problem, it needs to be dealt with. The longer we put off the solution, the more drastic that solution is going to have to be.