Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time.

I think we have got to be very careful about increasing taxes. There are so many needs out there that it is easy to suggest that we should spend more money. But reflecting on the actuaries' report that came out the day before yesterday for Social Security and Medicare it is bad news. They are now suggesting that if we do not deal with these unfunded liabilities, where the promises are over and above the revenues coming in, we have a future that is going to be very disastrous and complicated.

Their estimate is that in 15 years, it is going to take 28 percent of our current general fund budget to cover the difference between the taxes coming in for Social Security and Medicare and what is needed to fulfill the promises we have made. In 25 years, it is going to take over 50 percent of the general fund budget, to cover those two programs.

We cannot just continue to increase taxes. We have to start controlling the growth in government and the amount of revenue we are taking out of the pockets of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, a couple very important events are happening today that significantly impact our kids and our grandkids. One is the budget that we are passing. Although it is the best budget, the leanest budget, that we have passed since 1996, this budget still grows overall at about twice the rate of inflation.

If we project that out, to the future and government grows at twice the rate of inflation, eventually we are going to have a government that is much larger relative to our economy and GDP. The other event that has just happened today is the actuaries at the Social Security Administration have released their report on what is going to happen to Social Security. It is not good news in the actuarial report of Social Security. It confirms that Social Security is going broke; less money is coming in than is needed to pay benefits 12 years from now.

We continue in this body and across the Capitol in the Senate and the White House to increase our promises of what we are going to provide to people in the future; These are unfunded liabilities when it is not paid for. So our increased borrowing, how much our deficit spending is; how much we overspend in 1 year, how much we have to borrow in 1 year to accommodate that spending adds up to debt. The debt is a sum of all of the deficit spending. Our deficit is now over $7 trillion, and so we are going to have to vote again to increase the debt limit.

I brought this chart to show what has happened in the history of the United States when Social Security faces problems of less money coming in than is needed to pay benefits.

This is what has happened on the increase in taxes to accommodate the increased spending, and that is what I am suggesting today. If we do nothing, if we do not deal with this problem, if we do not look at the actuarial report of the huge burden of unfunded liabilities that are facing our kids and grandkids, then I think maybe, for lack of a better word, it is unconscionable.

Just for a moment, in 1940 the rate was 2 percent on the first $3,000. By 1960, we needed more money, so what did the government do, raise it to 6 percent. In 1980, it was raised to over 10 percent on the first $26,000; in 2000, 12 percent of the first $76,000; and now it is 12.4 percent of $87,900.

When government has needed a little more money, what we have done is increased taxes on working Americans. We have got to change from a program of fixed benefits over the next 60 years to a program of fixed contributions. Almost every other State has done that. To fix this around the edges simply puts off the problem to a future date and a future generation, which again I suggest is unfair.

For everybody that is interested, I suggest that you take the time, look at the Web site of the actuarial report from the Social Security Administration, and I will just say it, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR. That report says that the severe long-term consequences are enormous without action.

I compliment President Bush for saying that we have got to move ahead on this, that we have got to have a bipartisan group come to grips and understand the enormity of this problem of Social Security. It is a program that has been developed, that now we have 80 percent of our population that are retired that depend on Social Security benefits for 90 percent or more of their total retirement income. It needs to be fixed.

It is not fair for this Chamber to demagogue the issue and simply go into this election year trying to scare seniors. If they listen to some other party of a proposed solution to Social Security that it is going to ruin their Social Security.

I guess what I am trying to say is, I ask every voter, Mr. Speaker, to go and ask the candidates for President, to ask every candidate for the United States Senate, to ask every candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives what proposal have you introduced, what proposal have you signed on to as a cosponsor that is going to make sure that we keep Social Security solvent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

What are our goals and how do we best achieve them? I would think our goal in this war on terror is to have a safer and better place in America and the rest of the world. I would suggest that we are moving ahead in that direction.

Let me just read the resolution:

``Commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime.'' I do not think we should disagree with that.

``Commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution.'' I do not think anyone should disagree with that.

``Commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.'' Certainly nobody would disagree with their valiant service.

Is it a question that we are liberating Iraq? I thought the poll that came out was very interesting, where 2,500 Iraqis were polled on their opinion now, a year later, and I will read a couple. Some 57 percent said that life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse. Fifty-seven said it was better now and 19 percent said it was worse. Overall, 70 percent said that life was good now. Seventy percent said that life was good now, compared with 29 percent who said it was bad.

Asked what political system they believed was needed in their country, 86 percent said they wanted democracy. I met a little over a month ago with 60 nations at the Pacific Interparliamentary meeting. Those people are happy, in my mind, as I judge their conversations, that the United States and Great Britain and the coalition forces are doing something. They are sort of happy they are not paying for it, but they are happy that somebody is aggressive in this war on terrorism.

I met a couple of weeks ago in Libya, and Qaddafi, there is no question that Qaddafi did not want to end up the way that Saddam did. I was one of eight Members in Libya, and now we have countries like Libya saying, We are going to give up our nuclear weapons. We are going to give up our weapons of mass destruction.

Did Saddam have those weapons? We know he had them. This summer we found all of those airplanes buried under the sand. I think, I suspect, that some place under the sand or someplace, there are still those weapons. We know he had them; we do not know what he did with them. I think the world is safer.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for Congress and the President to be responsible. I object to the suggestion that somehow government can control the economy and decide whether it is a strong economy or there is good job growth. Government gets in the way every time.

Let me suggest this, Mr. Speaker. If the best possible economic advisors could simply be taken to governments around the world, and with their advice the economy would be strong, job growth would be strong, every country in the world would hire the best possible economists to have a strong economy. The fact is we have a cyclical situation, and for the last several years we have had a worldwide slump in the economy. Europe is even having a more dangerous downturn. In terms of doing some of the things that we should do, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is government getting out of the way and not imposing rules and regulations and taxes that put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage to other businesses throughout the world. We should not be taxing our business in the United States 20 percent more than what other countries, our competitors, are charging their business. It means that we should not have all of these overzealous regulations to impose extra costs on our business that other countries do not have.

The challenge for our kids and our grandkids is going to be huge. Overspending is part of that problem; but not dealing with the unfunded liabilities, not dealing with some of the huge challenges that are going to be faced by our kids and our grandkids is another area where Congress and the White House need to consider.

I would like to bring to mind Social Security. We have known for the last 14 years that Social Security was facing tough times. We passed a Social Security Reform Act from the Greenspan Commission in 1983. We dramatically increased the taxes and reduced benefits. I bring this chart to the floor, Mr. Speaker, because I want to call to everyone's attention the danger of not doing something in this House and in the Senate and in the White House to correct the Social Security problem.

Social Security is going broke. I just read an article, that it is no big deal because Social Security is not going to become insolvent technically until 2036, because that is how much money is in the trust funds; and if we pay that money back that government has borrowed, then there will not be any problem. But here is the problem and here is the situation, and we are looking for the actuary Social Security Commission report to come out next week.

We are looking at a situation where by 2017 there will be less money coming in from Social Security taxes than is needed to pay benefits. What do we do then? We have got these IOUs that government has taken some of this extra money and spent it for other government expenditures; but that means we have either got to borrow more money or reduce benefits or increase taxes. I just want to report to my colleagues what government has done in the past.

We started out with a Social Security tax of 1 percent on payroll. By 1940, we decided that was not quite enough money; we raised it to 2 percent on the first $3,000. By 1960, we were short of money again. We decided to raise that tax again to 6 percent on the first $4,800. By 1980, we raised it again to 10.16 percent on the first $25,900. In the year 2000, 12.4 percent on the first $76,000. Now it is 12.4 percent on $89,000.

So the dangers of doing nothing is that we increase taxes or reduce benefits. So I plead with my colleagues, stand up and do what is right. Do not demagogue somebody's suggestion of a bill by saying that person is going to ruin your Social Security so do not elect them.

I would call, Mr. Speaker, on every voter at every chance they have to go to a forum of individuals running for Congress or for the Presidency, and ask what bill have they offered or signed on to that is going to make sure that Social Security stays solvent.

I have done this since I first came to Congress 12 years ago, all scored by the Social Security Administration to keep Social Security solvent. I chaired a bipartisan Social Security task force of Republicans and Democrats. By the time we spent a year studying the problem, we all agreed that we needed to do something very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the White House, the President, and Members of the House and the Senate to move ahead to make sure we save this important program.

I join my colleagues in supporting H. Res. 540, which expresses the condolences and deepest sympathies of the House of Representatives for the untimely death of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovaski.

As we know, President Trajkovski died in a February 26 plane crash in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where he was planning to participate in a conference before traveling to Ireland to present his country's formal application to join the European Union.

Boris Trajkovski had been serving as President since 1999. He reached across ethnic divides to hold his country together during the ethnic turmoil and conflict which erupted in Macedonia in 2001. He also represented Macedonia well in working with the international community, both on regional issues and on making Macedonia's case for integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.

Macedonia is a country of concern to the Helsinki Commission, which I chair. As they have had to develop democratic institutions over the last 15 years, Macedonia also had to assert independent statehood as Yugoslavia disintegrated and deal with the economic disruption caused by that disintegration. Macedonia had to bear a refugee burden caused by associated conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo, and be a part of the enforcement of international sanctions against Milosevic's Servia. Macedonia has had to work out differences with neighboring states on sensitive, national issues which run deep in Balkan history, at the same time to overcome divisions within its own, ethnically diverse population. And, like so many of the countries in southeastern Europe, Macedonia must contend with organized crime and corruption, including trafficking in persons, which threaten its further democratic and economic development.

It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that the same strength and determination upon which the people of Macedonia have relied in the face of these challenges, will serve them again in the face of this latest tragedy. With the passage of this resolution, the United States Congress can show its support for

Macedonia and its people, not only as they mourn the loss of their President, but as they continue on the path of peace and prosperity he was leading them at the very moment he died.

In closing, I wish also to express my prayers and personal condolences to family and many friends of Boris Trajkovski.

Madam Speaker, I join my colleague Mr. Souder and others in supporting this Resolution and expressing deep sadness over the sudden and tragic death of Boris Trajkovski, the President of Macedonia.

In the 1990s, I served as a Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. During that time, the Commission, the Congress, the American government and indeed the international community viewed the conflicts associated with Yugoslavia's demise as a foreign policy priority. In Croatia, Bosnia and then Kosovo, thousands upon thousands were killed, raped or tortured while millions were displaced in ethnic cleansing campaigns. The violence, of course, would reverberate through the region, replacing trust and cooperation with fear and hatred in ethnically diverse communities.

Macedonia, as a republic of the former Yugoslavia, was caught in the midst of this turmoil, but it held itself together. Even when fighting erupted within its own borders, many of that country's leaders worked to find solutions to underlying grievances and brought peace back to Macedonia. Of course, international involvement was essential, but so was the presence of people like Boris Trajkovski, who would reach across ethnic lines and work to help all the citizens of Macedonia, not just those of their own ethnicity.

Boris Trajkovski, in my view, understood what it meant to be a head of state, to represent the country, all of its people, and all of their aspirations. Since 1999, he moved his country forward.

I hope, Madam Speaker, that the people of Macedonia will find not just sorrow in President Trajkovski's death but also the strength to make his vision of a democratic, tolerant and prosperous Macedonia a reality.

They can count on support of the United States to that end. As Secretary of State Colin Powell said on February 26, the day Trajkovski's plane crashed in Bosnia, the Macedonian President ``leaves behind a legacy of U.S.-Macedonian friendship that has never been closer or stronger.''

In closing, let me also express my deepest condolences to President Trajkovski's wife, Vilma, his children Sara and Stefan, and other family members and friends.

Poverty is a fact of life for as many as 400 million Indians who survive on less than $1 a day. Illiteracy rates, while decreasing, are still high. And the health, economic and security challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS virus may be the most important issue facing India today.

Madam Speaker, as our delegation conveyed during our recent visit, and I was want to convey today, the United States is India's partner as she works to address these and other challenges on the way to realizing her potential of becoming a true world power.

I returned home with a renewed commitment to ensure that the United States continues to provide economic development assistance for health care and food for the needy, improved energy efficiency and environmental restoration efforts. And we will of course honor our pledge to take the lead in the global effort to combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS, through the provision of medicine, volunteers, and much- needed financial resources.

Above all, we must foster a deeper appreciation for the shared values and beliefs that lie at the heart of our two great democracies, and an understanding of the common principles and interests that bind us together.

This Resolution is a celebration of India's Republic Day, but also a recognition of our strengthening relationship.

I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support and appreciation for the Civil Air Patrol. In December 1, 1941, just before the attack on Pearl Harbor, in the great tradition of American volunteering and patriotism, civilian aviators and watchers organized the Civil Air Patrol to help protect our borders. During World War II, they attacked 57 submarines and sunk 2 in addition to diligent reporting of suspicious sightings. In recognition of their contribution to the war effort, President Roosevelt declared the Civil Air Patrol an auxiliary of the Air Force.

The Civil Air Patrol represents what is great about America. Volunteers come together to assist each other in defending our homeland. The government did not direct them, but they cooperated with the government to help all Americans.

The Civil Air Patrol has three missions. It assists with Emergency Response throughout the country. The Michigan Wing flew more mission hours than any other Great Lakes wing. Second, it works with students to teach aerospace science and aviation. The Michigan Wing was given an award by the National Civil Air Patrol headquarters for the best aerospace education program in the Great Lakes.

And third, it trains Cadets. Today, I met with Lt. Col. Tim Neill and three Michigan Cadets, Cadet Lt. Sean Croff, Cadet 2nd Lt. Holly Growe, and Cadet Captain Teresa Olson, who impressed me with their intelligence and dedication. Like many young people they have a desire to serve their country and understand how they can contribute to our country and to our armed services. And they are learning about aerospace science and aviation. Additionally, learning discipline and hands on technical experience is excellent.

I applaud these young men and women, and I understand their contributions. When I was in graduate school in Delaware, I was the squadron Commander in the Civil Air Patrol. As one of the pilots, I flew search and rescue missions and understand the real contribution that Civil Air Patrol makes to our ``Homeland Security''.

Mr. Speaker, we all thank the leaders and students that give their time for the Civil Air Patrol. They represent the best traditions of America.

Madam Speaker, I am going to give a short tutorial on Social Security tonight, and this is going to be somewhat bipartisan because I am going to criticize both parties a little bit for not acting on one of the most serious problems I think is facing our country, and that is unfunded liabilities. In other words, the kind of promises that Congress has made to make themselves more popular back home and yet not having any way to pay for it.

The estimated unfunded liabilities in today's dollars of the promises that we have made that we do not know where the money is coming from is estimated now at $53 trillion. In other words, we would have to come up with $53 trillion and put it in a savings account that is going to return at least inflation and the time value of money in order to pay for these kind of future benefits. Even at this time, when Republicans are talking about the diligence that we must have in reducing spending, and my guess is we are going to reduce spending even less than what the President has suggested, there still is the problem of dealing with Social Security.

I asked the pages a little earlier to listen up to my comments tonight on Social Security because our pages, who are 16- and 17-year- olds and in high school, are the generation at risk that are going to have to put up with our nonaction to solve this serious problem. And as long as the pages are listening, let me just say it is a tremendous service that they provide to America, giving up their time, getting up at 5:30 in the morning, eating quickly and doing all the work we put before them.

Okay, here goes the roughly 30, 35-minute tutorial on Social Security. First, I am going to start out with how we divide up government spending. If you look at this pie chart, we see that the expense for Social Security is the largest piece of this pie.

Let me remind everyone that Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program where the taxes, FICA taxes that come out of your paycheck immediately, once it gets to the Department of Treasury, is either sent out in benefits to current retirees, or where there is a surplus it is spent for other government programs. Social Security even exceeds the 20 percent increase in cost of defense. Interest is 14 percent, but to continue to borrow this money and pretend that our problems today are so serious that it justifies taking money away from our kids and grandkids that cannot defend themselves I think is unconscionable.

Here is briefly how Social Security works. Benefits are highly progressive and based on earnings. Some people have said if the economy improves it will satisfy the problems that we are facing with Social Security. That is not true because as the economy improves and wages go up, that means future benefits, because they are directly related to the wages that you are making, future benefits are also going to go up. It might solve the problem in the short run, but in the long run it does not solve the problem.

The second is at retirement all of a worker's wages up to the tax ceiling are indexed to present value using wage inflation. In other words, if you made $20,000 a year 15 to 18 years ago, the wage inflation would credit you on the way your benefits are calculated up to what that $20,000 is worth today. In other words, it would be written down someplace around $40,000. The third blip, the best 35 years of earnings are averaged. So if you only work 20 years, 15 years go as a zero for your average earnings in terms of defining your benefits.

The annual benefit for those retiring in 2004 equals, and this is how it is progressive, it equals 90 percent of the earnings up to 7 percent. These are the benefits you are going to get or are getting. It equals 90 percent up to the first $73,440; 32 percent of the earnings between that figure $73,440 and $44,000; and 15 percent of the earnings above the $44,286. In other words, if you are a very low-income person, you can receive back on our average Social Security check 90 percent of what you averaged during the 35 years. If you are a very high income recipient, you are going to get 15 percent of the earnings up to the maximum of what is now $89,000. We have capped your earnings in terms of defining Social Security benefits up to $89,000, and that is geared to inflation in future earnings.

Early retirees receive adjusted benefits. If you retire at 62, they figure out how long you are going to live and reduce your benefits accordingly. However, if you decide to put off retirement, maybe until you are 70, then your retirement benefits are indexed to a higher calculation in your monthly payment. So if you are in good health, keep exercising and eat right, sometimes it is going to be to your advantage to put off receiving those Social Security benefits for a few years.

What a lot of people come to me and ask, what about all this cheating on SSI? These people are getting my Social Security benefits. That is not true. SSI comes out of the general fund. It does not come out of Social Security.

Well, Social Security started in 1934 with President Franklin Roosevelt. When President Roosevelt created the Social Security program over 6 decades ago, he wanted it to feature a private sector component to build retirement income. Social Security was supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool to support retirees. It was supposed to go hand-in-hand with personal savings accounts.

Researching the archives, and if you have never looked at the archives and the history of this country, it is very interesting. Looking at the archives when Social Security was passed, the Senate actually said there should be personal retirement savings accounts owned by the individual worker. The House said no, let us have government take all of the money and the government can invest it. That way we can be sure no snake oil salesman comes in and tries to convince individuals to invest their money some place where it might be risky.

In conference committee the House won out, the government won, and from then on every time Social Security gets into a little trouble in terms of income, enough income coming in to pay benefits, it does one of three things: It increases taxes; it reduces benefits; or a combination of those two. Most often it is a combination of the two.

Social Security is, what I wrote on this chart, is a system stretched to its limit. There are 78 million baby boomers that begin retiring in 4 years in 2008. This is part of the problem. With a pay-as-you-go program with more and more retirees and a lower birth rate, you end up with fewer and fewer workers paying for the benefits of that increasing number of retirees. Social Security spending exceeds tax revenue in 2017. That is the current estimate. Later this month the Social Security Administration is going to come out with their new projections of how big a problem we have for Social Security.

Chairman Greenspan at a House Budget Committee hearing said a couple weeks ago that Congress has got to

do something about Social Security. It is going broke. He suggested that we have a few changes in Social Security that slows down the increase in benefits over and above inflation. We had both Republicans and Democrats saying well, boy, we do not want to touch Social Security. As most people know, Social Security is easy to demagogue. We have so many people that are so dependent on Social Security, when somebody says this other guy running for Congress, he wants to ruin your Social Security, and if you do not understand how Social Security works, if you do not understand how great the predicament is going to be and how underfunded Social Security is going to be in the future if we do not make some changes, it is easy to say I better vote for the person that says my Social Security is never going to be touched.

There are only three ways to fix Social Security: You either reduce benefits; you increase taxes; or you make a change in the program to get a better return on the money that is being sent in by American workers. What I am suggesting and I put into my bill 10 years ago, and I was the first to say that we should consider private savings accounts in order to get a better return than the 1.7 percent that the average retiree gets from the money that is paid in, that they pay into Social Security.

The third bullet on this chart, Social Security trust funds go broke in 2037. But in 2017 or 2018 is when there is not enough money coming in from taxes to pay benefits, and so then you have to increase taxes on somebody else. What Congress has done in the past, they say let us just reduce benefits a little bit.

When I introduced my first bill over 10 years, and I have introduced a bill scored by the administration every session of Congress that I have been here since 1992, it was easy to fix the program because there were a lot of surpluses coming in. The point I am trying to make is that those surpluses are going to go away every year.

Back to the pie chart, guess how much we take in from Social Security now? We take in from Social Security taxes $540 billion a year, and what we pay out is $450 billion a year. So right now because of the huge tax increase on Social Security that we imposed with a Greenspan commission in 1983, for a short time period at least we are bringing in more revenues than we need. And part of the problem is that this Congress, both sides of the aisle, have said here is some free money so we are going to spend that Social Security extra money and then we are going to write out an IOU to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Very briefly, solvency is certain. We know how many people there are, and we know when they are going to retire. We know people will live longer in retirement, we know how much they will pay in and how much they will take out, and we know that payroll taxes will not cover the benefits starting in 2017. What do we do? And the shortfalls are going to add up to $120 trillion between 2017 and 2075. That is in future dollars. So if you count how many dollars every year between 2017 and 2075, $120 trillion, compare that to our $2 trillion, a little over, we are running maybe $2.4 trillion this year, that is our annual budget, a little over $2 trillion, $120 trillion we have to come up with in future dollars. If we had $12 trillion in today's dollars and put it into that savings account, we could accommodate benefits; but that is $12 trillion. Where is it going to come from?

This chart represents the demographic problems. The pay-as-you-go retirement system is not going to meet the challenges of a reduced birth rate and an increased longevity for people to live. Back in 1940 there were 37 workers paying in their Social Security tax for every one retiree. By the year 2000, it got down to three workers paying in their Social Security tax for every retiree. Of course we are estimating in 2025 it is going to be down to two.

In addition to those demographic considerations, what we are also facing is the fact that we have increased benefits along the way. And so the fewer workers you have to pay that increased benefit, the greater the burden is on those individuals. But more than that, what is it going to do to our economy? Do you know what is happening in France? France has a payroll tax to accommodate their senior population of over 50 percent. No wonder France has such a high unemployment rate. No wonder France is having a difficult time competing with world trade in their production, because a business only has two chances when they have that kind of increased tax: You either have to pay the employees less or you have to charge more for your product. And if charging more for your product makes you less competitive, then your economy is weakened.

Guess what the payroll tax in Germany is? Now the payroll tax in Germany is 42 percent. Ours is 15.2 percent, but if we do not do something and we say look, we will deal with this problem later, then the consequences are increasing taxes on American workers. That is a problem for those individual workers, and it is a problem for our economy if we start having to charge business the extra tax to pay those kinds of benefits.

That means that the United States Government, Federal Government, has to start considering doing something that almost every State in the Nation has done now, and that is instead of having a fixed-benefit program, you have a fixed-contribution program, and it is going to take 20-30 years to make the transition to that kind of a program. But look, the longer we put it off, the more drastic the solution is going to be.

I know I get a little emotional about this issue. Many of us have shouted and pulled our hair and got on our soapbox saying these are real problems, the unfunded liability of our promises. And of course it has been the tendency that politicians that take home pork projects, that start new programs, that make promises, and the needs out there are unlimited, but those kinds of extra promises that are put into law tend to increase the chance that that individual politician is going to be elected to office.

They get on the front page of the newspapers, their picture is on television cutting the ribbon, and they end up increasing the likelihood that they will be reelected. Part of that is because now over 50 percent of the adult population gets much more from government services than they pay in in taxes. With 50 percent of the people now paying about 1 percent of the total income tax in this country, it is easy to understand why some say, look, I've got problems, give me a little more government, give me a Representative that's willing to spend a little more money. But for the sake of our kids and our grandkids, we have got to face up, I think, to the real problems that we have today in the unfunded liabilities and the overspending.

This is simply a chart that says, starting in 2017, we go from the surpluses of the high taxes that we passed back in 1983 and we go into a future of huge deficit spending.

What I think it is good to remind people about is there is no Social Security account. That is the same as saying it is a pay-as-you-go program. The Supreme Court on two decisions now has said just because you pay Social Security taxes all your life there is no obligation on the part of the Federal Government to pay Social Security benefits. That is what the Supreme Court has said. They said Social Security taxes are a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President for increased taxes and that benefits are simply a benefit provision passed by Congress and they are not connected as far as an entitlement.

These so-called trust fund balances in Social Security are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures, but only in a bookkeeping sense. This was the Office of Management and Budget that said this, just to hopefully emphasize the fact that there is no entitlement program. I am introducing legislation to say that in future budgets of both the OMB, that is the President's budget people and CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the congressional budget office, they have got to include projections on unfunded liabilities; and I think maybe it will help us better realize the predicament that we are facing. Generally, it is a little easier to put off the solutions until the disaster is right there upon you. It is easier in terms of politics. It is not easier in terms of finding a good solution to keep Social Security solvent.

As I go around, since it was used against me in my first three reelections that Nick Smith is trying to ruin Social Security, I have probably given maybe between 250 and 300 speeches in my district to my constituents presenting the problem of the dilemma of Social Security. My district is starting to understand better that something needs to be done. Luckily, I have been reelected in spite of the demagoguery. But what a lot of the people say, if government would just keep their cotton-picking hands off of the extra Social Security money coming into the trust fund, it would be okay. This chart represents that it would not be okay. What government has borrowed and spent because of the annual surpluses is now in IOUs down in Virginia and it amounts to $1.4 trillion. The unfunded liability is $12.2 trillion in today's dollars, $120 trillion if you include the future dollar cost of what is going to be unfunded if we stay with the current tax structure.

I think I mentioned a little bit, so just briefly, economic growth will not fix Social Security. Social Security benefits are indexed to wage growth. When the economy grows, workers pay more in taxes but also will earn more in benefits when they retire. And so growth makes the numbers better now, but worse in the future.

The biggest risk is doing nothing at all. Social Security has a total unfunded liability, this is an old figure, of $9 trillion. It is closer to $12 trillion. The Social Security trust fund contains nothing but IOUs. To keep paying promised Social Security benefits, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly 50 percent, or benefits will have to be cut by 30 percent. Let us make sure we do not make that happen.

This is a chart that shows what the average retiree gets on the money they send in for Social Security taxes from their paycheck. The real return on Social Security is less than 2 percent for most workers and shows a negative return for some, compared to over 7 percent for the market. If you happen to be a minority whose life span is less, you actually are a loser and you do not get the money that you send in in Social Security taxes. If you are an average, you end up at about 1.7 percent return on your Social Security benefits. I just put this number down in terms of what has happened to the 5,000 stocks in the Wilshire 5,000, the index fund. This is what it has earned after inflation over the decade ending January 31, 2004. So it includes the down years, the low-income years. That is 11.86 percent. If we had government invest it and say, look, you cannot spend it anyplace else, but you have got to invest it, if we were to have individuals own it and say, look, government is going to say that you cannot take it out until you retire, government is going to limit the investment funds that you are allowed to invest in, in safe investments, the possibilities are that you could double, triple, quadruple and even more what you are getting now in terms of returns on the money you pay in for Social Security.

This is another way of saying it in my little bar chart, that if you retired in 1940 when there were so many workers and the program was just starting, it took 2 months to get back everything you and your employer had paid in. If you retire in 2005, it is going to take you 23 years after retirement to break even. And as you see, in 2015 it goes up to 26 years that you are going to have to live after you retire to break even on the money that was sent in for Social Security.

This chart shows what Congress and the President have done in the past to solve the Social Security problem, as there are more retirees and fewer workers. We have increased taxes, this chart does not show how we have reduced benefits, but what we did in 1983 is we increased the age that you receive the maximum benefits. So we are now indexing that age upward from 65, but it only goes up to 67 and then levels off again. Probably what we should do is somehow instead of indexing it to inflation, maybe index that retirement age for maximum benefits to the mortality tables.

I chaired the bipartisan task force on Social Security, Democrats and Republicans. After we spent about a year, both Republicans and Democrats on that task force agreed that something has to be done and the sooner the better. We had testimony from futurists, medical futurists that suggested that within 20 years, anybody that wanted to live to be 100 years old would have that opportunity. Within 30 to 35 years, probably, with our medical technology, anybody that had the desire and the money could live to be 120 years old. So medical technology is making the life span greater. Just let me give Members a short comparison. When we started Social Security back in 1935, the average age of death was 62. That meant most people paid into Social Security most of their lives but died before they were eligible for those retirement benefits. Now the average age of death for a male is 78 and the average age of death for a female in America is about 81\1/ 2\, almost 82 years old.

Very briefly, what we have done on tax increases, in 1940 our rate was 2 percent of the first $3,000. In 1960 we raised it threefold, 6 percent of the first $4,800. In 1980 we raised it to 10.16 percent of the first $25,900. In 2000 we raised it to 12.4 percent of the first $76,200. Now in 2004, because it is indexed for inflation, it is 12.4 percent of the first $87,900. The danger again is increasing taxes or reducing benefits.

Let us deal with some structural changes to Social Security, and I am just going to get into what I think is reasonable as far as some suggestions. I think it is important that we have raised Social Security taxes so much that now 78 percent of working families in the United States pay more in the Social Security tax than they do the income tax.

There are six principles of Social Security that I think are important: protect current and near-term retirees, allow freedom of choice, preserve the safety net, make Americans better off. On the principle of preserving the safety net, nobody's proposal for Social Security makes any change to the insurance part of that program, the disability part. If you get hurt on the job, you are going to be covered under Social Security for some payments. Nobody is suggesting any change in the government running that disability insurance part of the program. Make Americans better off and not worse off, and hopefully the economy in America better off; create a fully funded system; and no tax increases. Those are what I think should be our six guiding principles.

The U.S. trails other countries saving its retirement system. In the 18 years since Chile offered personal retirement accounts, 95 percent of the Chilean workers have created accounts and their average rate of return has been 11.3 percent. Of course, there is Australia, Britain, Switzerland, other countries. Even England allows 50 percent of their FICA tax, so-called, to go into personal retirement accounts.

Here are some of the highlights of my proposal. People choosing to participate in the voluntary account program would continue to receive benefits directly from the government. In other words, they have the option of going into a personal retirement savings account as part of the money that they pay in in Social Security taxes, or they can stay in the current system. Those benefits would be offset based on the amount of money deposited into their accounts, not on the amount of money earned in their accounts. In other words, if you earn more money, then you are better off than if you would be sticking with Social Security. If you can find a rate of return that is better than Social Security, you end up with higher retirement incomes.

In our Social Security legislation that we passed back in 1934, we said that municipalities did not have to go into this program; they could devise their own program as long as they had required saving investments. That is what a lot of counties in the United States have done. Some Texas counties are now paying $40,000 a year in retirement benefits compared to a much lower rate in Social Security. Those benefits would be offset based on the amount of money in accounts. This means that workers could expect to earn more for their account than the offset. What we do in our legislation, because it is so absolute, because we can have some companies that will guarantee a better return than Social Security, we have guaranteed in my bill that your retirement income will be at least as high if you stayed in the Social Security system. We start out, into Social Security you pay 6.2 percent, your employer pays 6.2 percent. In reality it all comes out of the worker's pocket. But we are saying that out

of that 12.4 percent, we are going to start letting you set aside 2.5 percent of your earnings in your own personal retirement savings account.

And there are several provisions where we divide it.

All worker accounts would be owned by the worker and invested through pools supervised by the government. Regulations would be instituted to prevent people from taking undue risks. I know this is all coming hard and strong, but if I give this special order maybe 100 times, people can tune in to pick up some of the leftover pieces.

Until an account balance reaches $2,500 in their personal retirement account, we restrict what they can invest in. It would be limited to choosing one of three funds: an 80 percent bond, a 20 percent index stock or a 60/40 fund or a 40/60 fund. So what we are saying is until one reaches that minimum, that they are going to be limited on the kind of investments they can make. But we also say when one can buy an annuity account that will give them as much money as Social Security would in their retirement, then they can do anything they want to with their money. After the balance reaches $2,500, workers would have access to additional safe funds.

The bill would increase contribution limits for IRAs, 401(k)s, and pension plans because we need to increase our savings in this country. The United States has one of the lowest savings rates in the world right now. That means it is tougher for our business and industry to come up with the funds that they use for research and growth and eventually jobs. It would create a 33 percent tax credit for the purchase of long-term care insurance up to $1,000, $2,000 for a couple. The long-term care insurance is one of the highest costs for Medicaid, a little bit different but still dealing with the huge problem of unfunded liabilities that we are facing with the Medicaid program. The Medicare program is the health care program for seniors. The Medicaid program is the health care program for low income.

It would create a tax credit to make it easier for low-income seniors to live at home or with a family rather than going to retirement care. Low-income seniors would be eligible for $1,000 for expense related to living in their own home, and households caring for dependent parents would also be eligible for a $1,000 credit for expenses.

Here is an issue that has bothered me in Social Security, and I call it ``fairness to women.'' Sometimes it would be the man that is the spouse, but in my proposal I say for married couples, account contributions would be pooled and then divided equally between husband and wife. In other words, if one spouse was making twice as much as the other spouse, they pool what they are making together in terms of what can go into their personally owned private investment account and divide it in two so each husband and wife would have the identical amount of money in their savings account. Certainly, it is going to simplify divorce settlements. It would increase surviving spouse benefits for up to 110 percent of the higher earning spouse's benefit. And stay-at-home mothers with kids under 5 would receive retirement credit. My wife has got me convinced, my daughters have me convinced that stay-at-home moms really work hard, and we should not discourage it. We should encourage it. So I am suggesting in my bill for a mom staying home with those young kids, they can get extra credit in terms of assigning an average earning for those later years of what they might have made if they had been in the working environment. So it averages their highest income for those years they stay at home with those young kids up to 5 years.

Briefly, and let me wind this up pretty quickly, the Social Security Solvency Retirement Security Act has been scored by the Social Security actuaries to restore long-term solvency to Social Security. There would be no increases in the retirement age, changes in benefits for seniors or near seniors or changes in the Social Security COLA. The COLA is the cost of living index that is calculated every year to increase Social Security benefits. Solvency would be achieved by recouping a portion of the higher returns from workers' accounts and slowing the increase in benefits for the highest-earning retirees. Remember that chart back a while ago, if people have been watching this whole show, where the progressivity of the Social Security system ends up with receiving 5 percent if one is of very high income? I add one more bend point, is what I call it, what economists call it, and say if one is of very high income, it is going down to be 5 percent of that very high-income earning. What this does in effect is it slows down the increase in benefits, slows down the increase in benefits for very high-income retirees. That is where we make up some of the money.

The bill would also call for a loan of $900 billion from the general fund to Social Security to help ease the transition. The loan would be repaid when the program regains solvency. My early bills that I introduced in 1993, 1995, 1997 in other sessions did not require that loan to help make the transition, and the transition is a problem because if we are going to have personal retirement savings accounts, somehow we have got to come up with that extra money because of the consideration that it is a pay-as-you-go. As soon as the money comes in, we are paying it out. And in 2017, the current estimate, that we are not going to have enough money to pay benefits. So starting in 2017, we need more money to continue those personal savings accounts.

I think I am down to my last chart, Madam Speaker. The trust fund continues; so I do not deplete the trust fund. I leave at least half of the trust fund in place in case of contingencies, emergencies, or anything else. The Retirement Security Act would allow workers to create, on a voluntary basis, accounts funded from their payroll taxes. The accounts would start at 2.5 percent of income and would reach 8 percent of income by 2075, a very gradual process, but, again, the longer we put it out, the more drastic the solution it is going to be. So we need to do it quickly. We need to quit demagoging. If one is a Republican, do not demagogue the Democrats' suggestions. If one is a Democrat, do not demagogue the Republicans' suggestions on how to fix Social Security. If one is a voter in the United States, then I think they should be asking everybody running for office what is their solution to make sure that Social Security stays solvent? Are they going to simply borrow more money and let our grandkids pay for it? Are they going to increase taxes? Are they going to reduce benefits? What is their proposal? And do not let them give some fast talk and say, ``Boy, I am not going to let anybody touch your Social Security benefits.'' That is what has been done too long. Pin them down. What bills have they introduced? What bills are they signing on to and cosponsoring to make sure we save Social Security?

The Retirement Social Security Act accounts start at 2.5 percent. They go up. Workers would own the money in their accounts. And that means right now if one dies at an early age, they might get burial expense but the money is not theirs; so that is how the Social Security system has gained some money with people that die before they are eligible for retirement benefits. In their personal retirement account the money is theirs. It goes to their heirs if they die before they reach age 65.

Investments would be limited, widely diversified, and investment providers would be subject to government oversight. The government would supplement the accounts of low-income workers making less than $35,000 a year to ensure that they build up significant savings. Actually, I sort of stole this idea from President Clinton. That was one of his proposals that was just part of a proposal that we have an American savings account. But let us make sure, to the best we can, that every worker ends up better in their retirement, that the system helps the economy by having the kind of savings account that, rather than being spent by government for more government programs, ends up being invested in equities, in bonds, in stocks, in the kinds of investments and savings that are going to help our country.

In conclusion let me just say that I was in Libya yesterday meeting with Colonel Khadafi. We have a system and a Constitution in the United States that provided that those people that work hard and save, that study and

learn and use it, end up better off than those who do not, the kind of motivation that has helped us have the strongest economy in the world. It was interesting that Khadafi told us that what he thinks is they need less government in Libya, that if they work 4 hours, they get paid for 4 hours; if they work 8 hours, they should get paid for 8 hours, and if they do not like what their employer is doing, changes jobs, and they do not want somebody speaking for them. In fact, also, and I made a decision early on not to take special interest PAC money for my campaigns, he said we do not want political parties in Libya because with political parties they are both going to be trying to get a majority. To get a majority, they spend money. And the first thing one knows, countries like Egypt would be coming in, financing one political party. Somebody else might be coming in with a different interest, financing another political party. And they would be tending to push laws that were good for their interests and not good for the country of Libya. That is a very interesting change of mood for an individual that has supported terrorist regimes in the past in how he thinks the future of Libya should be restructured.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 8, 2004, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, let me commend the Committee on Rules and certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for initiating these kinds of needed changes.

My suggestion is, let us start dealing with some of the real problems of Social Security and move this, allow this bill to proceed, because what is in this bill is fair and it is needed.

I just want to take a couple of seconds to say how important I think it is to deal with the huge problem that we are going to be facing in Social Security.

We have an unfunded liability now of $12 trillion in today's dollars. If we look at the dollars in future years that is going to be required to keep our promises in Social Security, then it is going to be over $25 trillion. It is something that is terribly disrespectful of current and future retirees to continue to put off the solution to Social Security. I would hope that we would continue this debate and discussion and look for ways that we can keep Social Security solvent.

It has been a good program. Putting off the problem that we are facing and demagoguing in elections is not the solution.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the original bill that came over from the Senate, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and I, have introduced, cosponsored, about six bills either to make the Chapter 12 permanent or to at least extend it. I would just like to tell my colleagues that in calling the bankruptcy judges that handled these farm cases, there has never been a farm case thrown out because the law expired. Sometimes it has been reacting late, but we have always made it retroactive in every case so those farmers that wanted to use the provisions of Chapter 12 have been able to do that.

So I would like to make Chapter 12 permanent, but I would also like to make some of the corrections that incorporate some of my language in a larger bankruptcy bill. I hope we can do that. I think it is important for our financial institutions to have some of the additional concerns that are addressed in this bill. This bill will also at the same time expand the availability of loaned money, of available credit money, to more people.

So I would hope we would pass the bill as provided by the Committee on Rules and send the bankruptcy bill in total over to the Senate and, hopefully, resolve it in conference for final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise now to recognize an important celebration in my district and the individuals who are being recognized for their special contributions to the community. The Greater Jackson Area Chamber of Commerce, under the leadership of President Susan Milhoan, is hosting its annual awards dinner to honor its 95th year, in addition to the anniversary of the founding of the Republican Party in Jackson in 1854, and the founding of the City of Jackson 175 years ago. At this celebration, several men and women will be recognized with a variety of awards for personal achievement, character, and service to the community.

The Athena Award recognizes women who demonstrate excellence in their profession, assist other women in realizing their leadership potential, and contribute their time and efforts to improving the community. Manya D. Otis, owner of Financial Sales and Seminars, is this year's winner, and her involvement in the community includes the Rotary Club, Disability Connections, and her church.

This year's Small Business Person of the Year is Al Cavasin, owner of Great Northern Sentry Company. Since founding his business in 1991, Al has expanded the company from a humble three employees to five separate divisions. Al is an expert and author on security matters and holds seats on the Board of Directors of the National Council of Investigators and Security Specialists and the Michigan Council of Private Investigators. He is also President of the Michigan Contract Security Association.

The 2004 Youth Citizen of the Year is Anthony Ramsey, Jr., a senior at Jackson High School. In addition to being an honor roll student and a member of the football and track teams, Anthony has made time to serve on the United Way Teen Advisory Panel, the Jackson Community Foundation Youth Advisory Committee, and volunteer at the Lily Missionary Church that he attends with his family.

Finally, the Citizen of the Year award goes to Maclay ``Mac'' Gwinn. After retiring from Consumer's Energy 20 years ago, Mac has given his time and efforts to countless community organizations including the Alzheimer's Association, the Jackson County Historical Society, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and the Jackson Kiwanis Club. He is the Big Sisters Big Brothers Board President and he has his own ``little brother.'' Mac also helped form a support group for men who care for loved ones stricken with Alzheimer's disease. Other Distinguished Citizens of the Year include Nancy Seydell, Steve Volker, Lisa Lazaroff, Mary L. Miller, and Bob Richardson.

I am very pleased to stand here today before my colleagues in the U.S. Congress to recognize these important milestones in the Jackson community as well as all of these great citizens. Each person is a wonderful role model who has expended a great deal of effort on behalf of the community in a selfless and humble manner. I challenge us all to strive to match their level of commitment and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank Chairman Dreier, certainly Chairman Rohrabacher and the rest of the cosponsors of the bill. Let me also thank the scientists at JPL, at Cal Tech, at Cornell that not only have a tremendous amount of knowledge but a tremendous amount of dedication to move ahead on these ventures, often at the sacrifice of a lot of their personal time.

My family has been very involved in JPL. On the 4th, two of my daughters, Stacia Smith and Juliana Bellinger, were at JPL, I like to think, representing me on January 4 at the successful landing. My son did his engineering degree at Cornell and my daughter and her husband, Elizabeth and Fred Burnette, worked at JPL for 8 years. Elizabeth studied physics at Cornell. Just the accomplishments and the excitement that it has brought to this country over the years, somehow it would be nice to renew that kind of dedication and achievement. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, research is going to be the key to our future economy, so developing the kind of products that people around the world want to buy and developing the ways to produce those products at a competitive cost is part of the key to our continued economic success.

In conclusion, my very great compliments to the scientists and the management at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and again my thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Jackson High School Black History Tour Group, a unique student organization started 10 years ago in my district that endeavors to share Black history and culture with the State of Michigan and the entire Nation.

In 1994, Jackson High School teacher Shirley Pitts recognized a desire among her students to learn and actively teach others about Black history. Though it began as a humble, once-a-year school program, her idea quickly grew into a year-round celebration of heritage and culture.

The Black History Tour Group is comprised of more than 30 students who travel to different schools, community organizations, and events. These students perform in a variety of artistic media including songs, poetry, dramatic readings, and theatrical sketches. They are some of the brightest, most talented members of their class, and they all share a deeply founded interest in Black history. Group members devote a great deal of their time and effort to their rehearsals and performances, but they are also active in many other ways at school and throughout their community.

Since its inception, the Black History Tour Group has been gaining both popularity and recognition. Among its distinguished highlights, the Group performed before the Michigan State Senate in 1997, in the East Room in the White House in 1998, and at the Presidential Inauguration in 2001, as one of only 3 groups to represent the State of Michigan.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I am very pleased to recognize the Jackson High School Black History Group for its first 10 years of excellence in the promotion of Black culture and heritage. We praise you for your dedication and hard work.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for being one of the original congressional

leaders for first responders and firefighters. And to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is the vice chairman or ranking member of our Research Subcommittee, I thank her for her help.

We have come a long way in this Congress helping first responders, and I think it has struck all of us after 9/11, the tremendous contribution that first responders add to the security of this country. So we are now asking even more of our firefighters and medical personnel. I would like to also commend Administrator Paulison, who has done an excellent job in terms of increasing the productivity and the efficiency of the United States Fire Administration.

This legislation is consistent with the President's request of a 3 percent increase in funding for the U.S. Fire Administration, but still at the same time with the help of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) on that side, certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the chairman of this committee and myself and many others on the Republican side of the aisle, we worked together to make sure that we try to give firefighters the kind of training and support that they need to more effectively and efficiently conduct their business.

I would also like to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for initiating the standards requirement that allows different fire departments to know the quality of some of the equipment and the machinery and the items that they might buy in that fire department to make sure that they do not, for lack of a better expression, get ripped off with equipment that is not as good as it seems.

Let me conclude by saying this is the bill I introduced and we passed in the House. It is a good bill. This Congress and America have increased our understanding that first responders and firefighters are very important to this country. Eighty percent of our firefighters in the United States are volunteers, but the full-time firefighter represents 80 percent of the people. So we have got to continue to support both the full-time firefighters and the volunteers, and that is what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, the legislation before us today would reauthorize the United States Fire Administration, which is charged with helping to prevent and control fire-related losses through leadership, advocacy, education, and support. This bill has been endorsed by a number of leading fire organizations including the Congressional Fire Services Institute, International Association of Fire Fighters, National Fire Protection Association, and National Volunteer Fire Council.

S. 1152, which is companion legislation to a bill that the distinguished Ranking Member of the Research Subcommittee and I introduced earlier this year, adheres to the Administration's budget request and provides 3 percent increases each year from 2005-2008. It would also restore the position of U.S. Fire Administrator as a Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed position, after it was inadvertently eliminated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

USFA coordinates federal fire service training, public education, research, and data collection and analysis activities. In addition, USFA has administered the fire grant program, which supports fire departments by providing them with the tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel. USFA Administrator David Paulison has done an excellent job since being appointed in 2001, and I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly recognize his outstanding service.

This legislation also directs USFA to develop standards for firefighting equipment and technology. The new standards will help to ensure that firefighters have access to the highest quality equipment available. Equipment purchased through the fire grant program must meet the new standards, although under unique circumstances, the Administrator is given flexibility to waive this requirement.

There was an effort to attach language similar to Representative Bob Etheridge's bill H.R. 919, the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefit Act, to the bill before us today. I am one of 281 cosponsors of H.R. 919, which would ensure that the family of a public safety officer who suffers a fatal heart attack or stroke in the line of duty receives survivor benefits. These families are often forced to wrangle with the Justice Department to obtain compensation. In the interest of passing the USFA reauthorization expeditiously the language was eventually dropped. However, I would like to express my commitment to continuing to work for passage of H.R. 919.

In closing, I am pleased that we were able to work closely with members of the minority as well as members of the fire services community in drafting this bipartisan legislation. I urge every Member to support S. 1152 so that we can insure the long-term viability of this important program.

Mr. Speaker, our Committee on Agriculture is a great committee in terms of Republicans and Democrats working together.

Our forests in this country are one of our strong resources that not only help us economically but also help the environment, and conserving the environment is important. Our forests certainly are an important part of Michigan, but they are also a very important part of our economic strength in the United States.

In the West, catastrophic wildfires recently have decimated those forests over the last several years. We have made a mistake over how we want to control forests. And sometimes in our overzealousness to protect from fires, we have increased the potential of additional damage. Two days ago, we

passed an energy bill. In this bill there is also language to utilize the natural renewable resources of our woodlands of America to also contribute to energy.

Removing some of the bureaucratic red tape for performing fire prevention measures is not only environmentally friendly but also fiscally responsible, as fire prevention costs American taxpayers approximately one-fourth of what it costs to fight catastrophic forest fires. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act authorizes the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reduce the amount of underbrush and deadwood buildup in forests that serve as kindling and fuel for the hottest, most dangerous fires. It would regulate BLM's activities by putting limits on the tree removal and road construction that has provoked controversy at times in the past. This would give BLM the tools it needs to confront the increasing threat of destructive forest fires on federal lands that have had serious impacts both on people and wildlife.

The bill takes additional measures to improve our forests. These include provisions to encourage energy production from renewable energy sources, protection of watersheds in forest areas and the creation of a forest reserve program aimed at preserving and rehabilitating up to one million acres of degraded and rare forest lands.

Disease and insect infestations are not only detrimental to our woodlands, but also to our tree-lined streets and backyards. In southeast Michigan, we are combating an exotic beetle known as the Emerald Ash Borer. The bettles' larvae feed on the sapwood and eventually kill branches and entire trees. This invasive pest has resulted in the quarantine of all ash products in six counties and southeastern Michigan. There are 28 million ash trees in the six quarantined counties and an estimated 700 million ash trees in Michigan. We are not finding that the pest is spreading into Ohio. The magnitude of this problem is serious. Preliminary data from the Forest Service estimates that the potential national impact of the Emerald Ash Borer is a loss of ash trees up to 2 percent of total timber with a value loss of between $20-60 billion.

Following discussions with Secretary Veneman and gaining the support of the Michigan delegation, Michigan Department of Agriculture, and DNR we were able to get the approval of substantial millions of dollars in emergency assistance from USDA to combat the Emerald Ash Borer. This federal funding will supplement resources provided by state and local authorities and will be used for pest surveillance, quarantine of infected areas, and some tree removal. In order to more efficiently combat destructive pests like the Emerald Ash Borer, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act puts in place measures that will allow accelerated information gathering on such insect infestations. By removing bureaucratic red tape and being more proactive in maintaining forest health, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a step in the right direction towards efficiently managing our forests, preventing catastrophic fires, controlling damaging insect infestations, and protecting our environment.