Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the privilege of visiting with a great American by the name of A.C. Lyles, who has befriended many celebrities over the years. Throughout the decades that he has worked at Paramount Pictures, A.C. Lyles has become loved by studio staff, by stars, and by Presidents. He has made countless contributions to the motion picture industry and become a legendary producer, writer and partners in numerous theatrical features and television shows.

A.C. Lyles was born May 17, 1918 in Jacksonville, Florida. Even as a young boy, he

dreamed of Hollywood. Following his high school graduation, A.C. was hired by Paramount to work in the mail room. It was not long before he was promoted to a director of publicity at the tender age of 19, and eventually became a producer in 1954. Among the variety of successful features and television shows that he produced over the years, A.C. was perhaps best known for the western movies that became a Paramount trademark.

As the Hollywood liaison to Presidents, A.C. brought the culture of art to the White House. During the administration of his close friend, Ronald Reagan, and throughout the Bush Administration, he brought celebrities to entertain at presidential functions. He also served on the Presidential Board of Advisors on Private Sector Initiatives and regularly attended meetings at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

A.C. has been recognized countless times over the years for his work at Paramount. These awards include the famed Golden Spurs award, the George Washington Award of the Freedoms Foundation, and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. On behalf of the United States Congress, and his good friends the Hon. David Dreier and the Hon. Mary Bono, I am pleased to recognize his extraordinary career once again in admiration of his unyielding dedication and unparalleled achievement.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and the chairman for introducing this legislation. Nanotechnology is the science of the very small, and I thought I might use a visual aid today. So if my colleagues would take a hair out of their heads and pretend that it is hollow, they could fit 100,000 strands of nano-technology inside that hollow hair. It is amazing technology.

Nanotechnology is exciting to me because it has so much potential for the future. Already today, computers and disk drives contain nanotechnology. Soon, most computers and telecommunications hardware will be based on it. In the not-too-distant future, nanotechnology will begin to transform biology, medicine, military systems, energy systems.

Nanotechnology is poised to become the next great vehicle of growth for the American economy; and like biotechnology was 10, 12, 15 years ago, nanotechnology has reached a critical growth stage. The 21st Century Research and Development Act intensifies Federal support for nanoresearch and experimentation and will prove, I think, critical to unlocking the tremendous potential that nanotechnology presents.

In conclusion, let me just say that nanotechnology holds incredible promise in a wide range of scientific disciplines; and while there are some nanotechnology products on the market today, the industry is very close to achieving several important breakthroughs that include revolutionary new applications in materials science, in manufacturing. So if we are going to stay competitive in the world market, and that means having our standard of living above everybody else, then we are going to have to take advantage of this kind of technology that can improve the way we produce products, but also improve those products that we are selling and allow us to be competitive on a world market.

In conclusion, I would hope everybody would unanimously not only support this bill but the kind of funding that is necessary to make sure that the United States stays on top in nanoresearch.

I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, this week we are taking up the energy bill, finally. As a member of President Nixon's Oil Policy Commission during the Arab oil embargo, I have long felt that not only we should, but we must do more to ensure domestic energy supplies.

After more than 2 years of negotiation, the House and Senate are poised to finally pass an energy bill, much overdue. The legislation will help make transmission networks more reliable to prevent the type of blackout that paralyzed us last August. It is going to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum. It is expected to pass this week and become law, I predict, by Thanksgiving.

Over the long term, the United States must move away from its heavy reliance on petroleum for energy. As long as we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, while only possessing in this country 3 percent of the world's proven reserves, it will be nearly impossible to eliminate our dependence without alternatives.

American production is not going to substantially increase because this bill will not permit the development of our most promising new source of oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because of fierce opposition. With opposition also to most offshore drilling as well, U.S. production is going to continue to fall. For lack of a better word, hostility against expanding our production in this country has been a major factor in production falling from 12 million barrels a day in 1970 to 8 million barrels a day now, a substantial reduction.

Conservation can help reduce petroleum consumption to some degree, but it cannot eliminate the critical need for new energy sources.

Mr. Speaker, a little bit of the good news: since 1970 our GDP has risen 147 percent while our consumption has only increased by 42 percent. The energy bill is going to help us do even better with the focus on more efficient appliances, electricity generation, increased automotive efficient; but as long as the economy continues to grow, conservation is only going to meet part of the need. It is very unlikely that it is going to lead to any reduction in total consumption.

As a result, the only real solution I think to our dependence on foreign energy lies in shifting consumption patterns away from oil towards other energy sources, and this is what this energy bill helps us do.

Where this bill shines is in its support for alternative fuels such as clean coal, ethanol, biofuels, renewable energies to make a shift away from petroleum possible.

Mr. Speaker, there are many talented people working on solutions attracted not just by government tax breaks and subsidies, but also the huge potential profit in store for an inventor who provides practical solutions to our energy

problems. For example, a week before last, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and I and some others met with a Russian physicist who had invented an engine that uses coal dust for fuel. It is more than 80 percent efficient, and that means it has almost zero pollution. These engines could allow us to make better use of our domestic coal reserves.

The energy bill conference report is over 1000 pages long, and I do not think most of us have had a chance to read it all yet, but I am excited about some of the potential it has. However, on the down side, it contains at least $20 billion in tax credits for energy development and production. This is about twice as much as was in the House-passed bill. We are going to have to look closely at these tax breaks and look for special interest ``pork'' provisions that should not be in the bill.

I hope to support the bill if it is along the lines of what we passed in the House. We need to reduce our reliance on hostile and politically unstable Middle East fuel. Achieving energy self-sufficiency is going to improve our country's security for decades to come. This national energy policy shows us a way out of dependence. I hope we will give it due consideration and hopefully pass a good bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, part of our goal is to keep prisoners working, especially if they are working to take care of themselves. This amendment simply provides that the law would stay as it is now for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Prison System, should have prisoners in prison industries produce the products they need.

I chaired the Department of Corrections budget in the State of Michigan for years, and in terms of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Hoekstra) idea that we should have competitive bids, that is what we have done in Michigan. I mean the prison industry competes with the private sector. If they cannot beat the bid, or the quality of the product, they do not get the bid.

But what is happening in the State of Michigan is that our prison industries is still making a great deal of money. The incentive has been there to be productive; and, in terms of recidivism,

there has been a greater interest by these workers to do a better job. That means they are more likely to get a job on the outside. We instigated provisions in Michigan that prisoners have to pass drug tests before they are even allowed to work. So working has become a privilege. It gives them an advantage over other prisoners. That is what we should seek to do in our federal system.

In fact, when I first went into the Michigan legislature, the prisoners produced farm products. They produced the fruits and the vegetables and the milk and the butter and they did maintenance as well as prison industries sales. It reduced the cost to State government of taking care of those prisoners, and that is the way it should be at the federal level.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct on that. Actually, ``may'' is the exact language of the amendment. So it is a decision of the Federal Prison System whether they do the sole source contracting for their own use. So it still leaves flexibility, but it allows the prison system to require prisoners to make more of the things that are going to be required by the Bureau of Prisons.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for supporting the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 414. Recently, I met with a delegation of Chinese parliamentarians. China is undergoing huge changes that will alter relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China for decades to come.

Trade was high on our agenda. Total U.S.-China trade rose from $5 billion in 1980 to $147 billion in 2002. China is a huge potential market for U.S. goods and services. However, last year China sold us $103 billion more in goods than we sold to them. This trade deficit is caused by the political and social difficulties of doing business in China, by China's restrictive trade and investment practices and by the enormous American appetite for low-priced Chinese goods. In seemingly good news for farmers, China has been dramatically increasing its protein consumption, which means our agricultural trade should improve.

Many, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, contend that China also tilts the playing field by manipulating the value of its currency to keep it low. This lowers the price of Chinese goods in the United States and raises the price of our exports to China. Depending on whether you buy or sell, this makes Americans better or worse off in the short run. For the long run, such a large trade deficit makes America vulnerable. We presented our concerns to the parliamentarians about agricultural and industrial quotas and arbitrary Chinese biotechnology standards. We will press for a market in China that is fair.

China's large potential market should not blind us to the oppressive and aggressive nature of the regime. It remains a Communist system with dictatorial control over politics and business. Communist party leadership fills the top positions, but the military, with the world's largest standing army, also wields great influence in state industries and politics. China still represses Tibetan and Muslim minorities, and has been working to reduce free political expression in Hong Kong, sparking huge rallies in defiance of proposed anti-sedition laws. While enterprise flourishes in certain zones, it is a privileged capitalism operating under government favor. China still tries to dictate the terms of Taiwan's existence and has traditionally backed North Korea's reprehensible regime.

Yet, China is changing. Economic growth and competition in the free world economy will tend to bring social and political change, though probably not as quickly as we would like. Experts on China like Ross Terrill (author of The New Chinese Empire--and What it Means for the United States) predict that the Communist party-state will crumble under the pressures of foreign trade and international obligations for transparent trade laws. Encouraging this transparency will be to our advantage.

We need to welcome Chinese participation in the society of nations when it chooses to play a constructive role. However, we must be firm when we disagree. We should not soft-pedal our commitment to fundamental human rights or our demands for trade agreements that don't put us at a disadvantage. We must recognize China's ambitions to challenge U.S. interests at the United Nations, in Asia and around the world. We have to be aware of and resist Chinese encroachments on our national security and that of our allies. Firm discussions of differences, like those we had with the parliamentarians, are one way to push forward U.S. engagement with this great nation in pursuit of interests we have in common. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a soldier from my neighborhood who was killed in Iraq. He was at his core a true American patriot. Spc. Donald Laverne Wheeler, Jr., DJ, as he was known to his friends, made the ultimate sacrifice for this country at age 22 years.

DJ was killed in Tikrit, Iraq on October 13, 2003 when his armored vehicle, on which he was the gunner, was attacked with a rocket- propelled grenade. Wheeler was searching for a possible improvised explosive device when his unit came under attack.

DJ joined the Army in November 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, and said he wanted to fight against the evil. He felt it was his duty as an American. He was assigned to the U.S. Army's A Company, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX, and was sent to Iraq in March 2003.

His family has a history of military service. He is named after his uncle killed in the Korean War. His grandfather, one of his inspirations, was a World War II veteran.

DJ graduated from Lumen Christi High School in Jackson in 1999 where he was an offensive lineman on the team that made the regional finals. His coach described him as a good, solid, hardworking kid. More than this, however, DJ's spirit would fill any room he was in. He was nicknamed ``Sunshine'' by one of sergeants because he towered over his friends and was always smiling. Those who knew him recalled his sense of humor, his ability to make you laugh, and his generous spirit. While in Iraq he frequently wrote home asking for dollar bills and candy to hand out to Iraqi children.

What is so admirable about this individual is his dedication and the support from his family in Concord, MI. They deserve to be honored as much as he. DJ's parents, Donald and Mary Catherine Wheeler, fully support the actions in Iraq and the President. Even when tragedy touched their own lives and the lives of DJ's three sisters and eight brothers, this family calls on us to finish the work in Iraq that DJ helped begin.

Words cannot express the gratitude of a country. I honor this man today, and his family, for the great irreplaceable gift they have given our country, our ideals and our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joanne Konkle on her well deserved retirement following more than 30 years of dedicated service to the health and well-being of the citizens of Calhoun County, Michigan.

For the past 19 years, Joanne has served as the Administrator of the Calhoun County Medical Care Facility. In this capacity, Joanne has been responsible for the management and operation of the facility, which serves the needs of some of the county's most vulnerable senior citizens. Her leadership and sound fiscal stewardship has earned the center numerous quality awards and a reputation of being one of the most outstanding medical care facilities in the State of Michigan.

Joanne's career accomplishments are notable not only because they are numerous, but also because they represent a dedicated focus on service to others. In addition to her work as a Clinical Social Worker at the V.A. Medical Center, Joanne is a member and past president of the Michigan County Medical Care Facilities Council, served three-terms as a Calhoun County commissioner, 24 years as a member of the Community Mental Health Board and, for the past 45 years, has served as a board member of the Calhoun County Association for Retarded Citizens.

She has been a staunch supporter and volunteer for organizations such as the Substance Abuse Council, Special Olympics and the Alzheimer's Association, as well as a passionate advocate on issues and legislation affecting the elderly and mentally handicapped.

While so much of her life has been dedicated to others, Joanne has never lost sight of the importance of family. She and her husband Ted have been married for 51 years, and have raised four wonderful children. In addition, seven grandchildren and five great grandchildren will undoubtedly play a major role in the Konkle's retirement plan.

I am honored to recognize Joanne Konkle for her commitment to community and her tireless and selfless service to others. I wish her and her family all the best as she embarks on a well deserved retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I asked for 1 minute because I have got three simple reasons that I think the Pence amendment is good.

First I would like to suggest, after serving 5 years in the Nixon administration, the wisdom and common sense in this body is just as good as it is in the Department of State that made this recommendation to the President of not having any loan. That is probably the biggest reason we are pursuing a no-loan provision.

The second is what is the implication on our kids? Let me remind everybody we are borrowing this money which means our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay it back. It is reasonable to have half of this money in a loan.

The third reason that we want to pursue it is to try to encourage other countries to forgive part of their loan. And the language in the Pence amendment gives the administration the authority to bargain, to move ahead, to encourage other countries to forgive their loan.

I say let us vote on the Pence amendment. I suggest the leadership make it in order.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk for a little while about another dilemma facing this country, and that is the problem of keeping Social Security solvent.

We developed a program back in 1934 that provided that existing workers pay in their taxes, and then immediately those taxes were sent out to retirees. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after the Great Depression, seeing many American families going over the hill to the poor house, like Will Carlton wrote about in Hillsdale County, Michigan, where I am from, provided a program which said let us have some forced savings during your working years so you have greater social security in your retirement years.

It is interesting searching the archives in which the Senate said that these accounts should be in privately owned accounts, but you can only take them out when you retire. The House, on the other hand, passed a bill which said the government should collect all of the money and then send out the money to existing retirees as those individuals reach 65 years of age. This pay-as-you-go program worked very well in those early years because there was a growing number in the workforce, and most people died before they reached 65. Actually, up until 1939, the average age of death was 62 years of age. So if a person paid in all their life and never reached 65, the program worked very well.

Now we are faced with the dilemma of two colliding forces hitting us and many other countries of the world. Those two colliding forces are the fact that we are living longer and the birth rate is declining. That means that there are fewer workers paying in their taxes to accommodate the needs of a growing number of retirees in relation to the number of workers paying in their taxes.

I would ask all my colleagues to agree to three goals of retirement security. We are going to have to deal with it. We have known that for the last 12 years, that Social Security was going broke, that it could not stay solvent. The three requirements that I think everyone should agree to are, one, continue to provide retirement security for the elderly; number two, give young people an opportunity to improve their retirement prospects; and, number three, benefit the economy instead of burdening it.

Now we are faced with a situation where every State in the Nation has changed their retirement program from a fixed benefit after people retire to a fixed contribution. Most companies, most of our industry and companies have also made that change simply because the fact is very clear that with a declining number of workers and an increasing number of retirees in relation to the number of workers simply because we are living longer, requires that the only program that can continue and be solvent is moving towards a fixed contribution program.

Here is the dilemma that I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues, and that dilemma is the fact that every time this country has run into problems of not having enough Social Security tax money coming in through the FICA tax, one of two things have happened: we have either increased taxes or we have cut benefits, or we have done both.

This chart represents how much we have increased taxes over the years. In 1940, the rate was 2 percent on the first $3,000 for a maximum tax on any individual worker in this country of $60 a year. By 1960, we decided to up that tax rate, and we increased it threefold to 6 percent on the first $4,800 for a total tax that was payable by workers in this country of $288.

In 1980, up to 10.16 percent, jumped it up to $25,900, up to almost $26,000, and the total tax paid in by any individual increased also to $2,631.

By 2000, we are paying 12.4 percent; it is on $76,200. That is indexed back in the so-called Greenspan Commission in 1983 where we changed the Social Security laws to cut benefits to increase the retirement age and to again increase taxes, and so the age today is the first 12.4 percent on $84,000 because it is indexed to inflation.

I just cannot stress strongly enough, if we put off the solution to this problem, Washington, Congress, the House and the Senate and the President, are going to repeat what they have done so many times in the past until disaster is upon us and then simply wait until the disaster is upon us and then say we are going to have to increase taxes and cut benefits.

I call on my colleagues as aggressively as I can to say, look, the longer we put off the solution, the more drastic that solution is going to have to be, and it is unfair to American workers. The fact is that most American workers today, 76 percent, pay more in Social Security tax than they do for income tax.

This is a pie chart that I thought would be good to represent how big Social Security has become as a portion of total State and Federal Government spending. Social Security now takes 22 percent of the total spending of the Federal Government. Defense, even with the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, are still only 18 percent, growing up now to 19 percent.

Domestic discretionary, all of the arguments that we do from February through most of the year on the 13 appropriations bills uses up 19 percent of the total Federal budget compared to 22 percent for Social Security. Other entitlements, 14 percent; Medicaid, 6 percent; Medicare, 11 percent. But here again, if we add prescription drugs to Medicare, Medicare eventually over the next 30 years could overtake Social Security as far as the portion of the Federal budget that is used for that particular program.

It is easy for Members of Congress to try to do good and solve more problems for the people. In fact, I see part of the dilemma is a Member of Congress coming up with new problems to help solve some of those problems back home probably increases his or her chances of being reelected because they are on television and the front page of the newspaper cutting the ribbon for the new jogging trail or the new library or the new pork project or the new social program that they have introduced and passed in this Congress.

What do we do in a Congress that we have today where more and more Members of Congress represent a population that wants more from government? Right now over 50 percent of the people in the United States get more from government in government programs than they pay in in taxes, so we can understand a lot of those individuals go to their Member of Congress, or their Senator, and say I do not care about the increased taxes. And that is because they do not pay into the income tax contribution part of our programs here in this country, and so we have over 50 percent of the American people that now get more from government than they pay in taxes, and so the tendency of a lot of those individuals is to suggest to their representatives, let us have more government. I think this is a huge danger of taking away some of the things that has made this country great.

When our forefathers started this country 227 years ago, I think I am right on that, they said we want a Constitution that provides that those people that work hard, that save, that study and use that education end up better off than those that do not. And now we have a Congress that says let us sort of level the playing field and make sure that everybody has about the same, so we take away from the people that have been successful and give it to those individuals, maybe that

have had bad luck, but maybe they have not had the inspiration to save. I think there is a danger in taking away the motivation that has made this country great. The bigger government gets, the more empowerment we give bureaucrats; and the more we take away from individuals as far as being responsible for their own lives, the greater danger we face in terms of weakening our economy and weakening our relative economic position with the rest of the world.

Back to Social Security, this chart shows the dilemma in terms of a short-term surplus and very long-term future deficits. There is going to be less money coming in in Social Security tax than is needed to pay out benefits in about 2016 to 2017. Some people suggest just have government pay back what government has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund and we will be okay. Well, I agree, government should keep their hands off the Social Security surplus and the trust fund, but now government has borrowed $1.3 trillion from Social Security, and it is going to pay it back. It is going to be tough because we are going to have to increase taxes, or we are going to have to increase borrowing to come up with that $1.3 trillion.

We will do that, but what do we do to come up with the estimated additional $10 trillion that is needed to keep Social Security solvent? Again, this represents how there are fewer and fewer numbers of workers paying in their Social Security tax to cover benefits. In 1940, there were 38 workers working, paying in their taxes for every one retiree that we had in America. By 2000, it came down to three individuals that were working for every one retiree. As the ratio of workers to retirees diminishes, that means that if we are going to keep those retirees and seniors at the same level of Social Security, then the taxpayers, the current workers, are going to have to pay in more.

The prediction is that by 2025 there are going to be only two people working to come up with enough taxes to accommodate every senior that is retired.

Some people have suggested that if economic times were better, maybe we would solve the problem. Not so, Mr. Speaker. Insolvency is certain. We know how many people there are and when they will retire. We know that people will live longer in retirement, and we know how much they are going to pay in and how much they are going to take out.

Payroll taxes will not cover benefits starting in 2017, and the shortfalls will add up to $120 trillion. That is hard for even Members of Congress to know how much $1 trillion is, but it is going to add up to $120 trillion that we are going to have to come up with by either increasing taxes or increasing borrowing over the next 75 years to keep the promises that we have made in Social Security.

That $120 trillion paid over the next 75 years represents another statistic that I give, and that is that it is going to take about $11 trillion today or $11 trillion unfunded liability, and that means coming up with $11 trillion today, put it in some kind of a savings account that is going to earn the average rate of return that we get on government bonds right now to accommodate the $120 trillion. It earns interest over the next 75 years.

I am disappointed that there have been only 26 colleagues that I have counted in both the House and Senate that have been willing to sign on to a Social Security bill that has been scored to keep Social Security solvent. I mean, it is so easy to put off these challenges because it is an easy issue to demagogue. Ninety percent of the seniors today depend on Social Security for most of their retirement income. So one can understand that when a Democrat or a Republican comes up with a proposal for Social Security, and I know this for a fact because I introduced my first Social Security bill when I came to Congress in the 1993-1994 session of Congress, and the next election my opponents were saying ``Nick Smith wants to ruin Social Security.'' It is easy to demagogue; so we have shied away from it. We have not stood up to our responsibilities.

I have heard Members of Congress say it is up to the President to decide. I have heard Members of Congress say the President maybe misled us on Iraq. The fact is that, for lack of a better word, we cannot be wimps in terms of our responsibility in Congress. Whether it is Iraq and we have the opportunity to have all of the classified information that the President does or whether it is solving Social Security, there is a responsibility for the initiative to come from Congress just as much as it should come from the President. This represents what we have borrowed from the trust funds.

And let me mention an interesting fact, in 1983, with the Greenspan Commission rewriting our Social Security laws, they suggested at that time that we needed the kind of increase, the 12.4 percent increase, in taxes with the increased base that we showed on that earlier chart. They suggested that we need a 12.4 percent on an expanded base that started at about 70,000 and is at 84,000 today, but they admit now that they made a mistake, that they increased taxes higher than what was needed. That is why former Senator Moynihan said, Let us lower the tax and have just enough tax to cover benefits; and of course, if we had done that, it would have made it very clear that this was a program that could not sustain itself and was not solvent.

Because of the increased tax, there was extra surplus coming in every year, and so now government borrowed that extra money that was not used when it came in. The money that was not used to pay benefits has now amounted to $1.3 trillion, but the shortfall after the full repayment of the trust fund is $10 trillion. So it is going to take $11.3 trillion as the current unfunded liability of Social Security, a huge amount, and it needs to be dealt with.

Social Security is a system stretched to its limits. Seventy-eight million baby boomers begin retiring in 2008. Seventy-eight million baby boomers begin retiring in 2008. That means any pay-as-you-go program, whether it is Social Security or Medicare, our anticipation that extra taxes are going to come in from workers is not correct in a situation where these workers are going to be fewer in relation to the number of retirees and to the additional responsibilities that government has in this country.

Social Security spending exceeds tax revenues in 2017, and Social Security trust funds go broke in 2037, that is, if we pay back all that we have borrowed. But remember what government has done in the past is to increase taxes and reduce benefits so that they do not have to pay it back, and that is the challenge, that is the threat. That is why every senior citizen should say to every candidate running for Congress next year, what are you going to do about Social Security? What bill have you written or what bill have you signed on to that is scored to keep Social Security solvent?

It is not new. I mentioned my first bill was in the 1993-1994 session of Congress when I first came to Congress. Here is what the Commissioner of Social Security Dorcas Hardy said back in 1991: ``The crisis is coming fast, in the lifetime of a few already retired and of almost all those now under the age 55. The stakes are high, trillions of dollars.''

In 1994, I said: ``Failing to take prompt action on Social Security will burden our children and grandchildren with benefit cuts and crippling taxes,'' and that is what I said about every year, and it is so discouraging to not pay attention to what I think is one of America's greatest challenges, and that is to save Social Security.

We talk about Iraq. I think if we are going to talk about Iraq and what are our responsibilities on national security, it is just as important to look at retirement security and economic security in this country; and that means, as we talk about Afghanistan, Iraq, and what it is going to take for expenditures, we should also be talking about what it is going to take to keep Social Security solvent and to keep Medicare solvent.

Let me read a couple more quotes. ``Will America grow up before it grows old? Will we make the needed transformation early, intelligently, and humanely, or procrastinate until delay exacts a huge price for those least able to afford it?'' And that was the former Secretary of Commerce and Concord Coalition President Pete Peterson in 1996.

In 1998, Tim Penny, a Democrat from that side of the aisle, was very aggressive as he studied Social Security, and he said at that time, ``We face a crisis in the Social Security system, and we can no longer wait to put it on sound footing. We need to move from the unreliable 'pay-as-you-go' system to one based on benefiting from real investment.''

And in 1998 and 1999, I chaired the bipartisan Task Force on Social Security, and here is what all the Democrats and all the Republicans on that task force agreed when we completed. And we agreed, ``Time is the enemy of Social Security reform, and we should move without delay,'' and, again, that was all the Democrats and all the Republicans that agreed to that fact.

And yet nothing happens.

This chart represents that Social Security is not a good investment. The columns represent how long one is going to have to live after they retire to break even on what they and their employer put into Social Security. Of course, in the early years, it was a good deal and they were getting started and were not working very long; so they got back everything they put in very quickly. But by 1995, they had to live 16 years after retirement. By 2005, they have to live 23 years after retirement to break even, and now it is up to 26 years.

The average return on Social Security is 2.7 percent. So can we do better than that? The answer is yes. We can guarantee that we can do better than 2.7 percent on a lot of investments. The Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act, when F.D.R. created the Social Security program over 6 decades ago, he wanted it to feature a private sector component to build retirement income, and 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 and private pension plans.

I mentioned the Senate passed Social Security legislation that said there should be private accounts owned by the individual and so if that individual died before 65, it goes to their heirs. The House said government should do it all. When they went to conference, the House went out, and we ended up with the pay-as-you-go program that we have today that is going insolvent.

The diminishing return on the Social Security investment, the average return is less than 2 percent. It is about 1.7 percent. If they happen to be a minority because of the fact if we take the average young black worker, they die before the age of 65, before they gain all the benefits of the retirement program. So actually they do not break even; they have a negative return on what they pay into Social Security.

The average is 2.7 percent, but the Wilshire 5000, and that is from 1993 until 2003, even during these bad years of the stock market, these poor performing years of 2001, 2002, and 2003, even with those years included, the average return over and above inflation has been 7 percent.

So are we smart enough to come up with some way to have private accounts and limit what those private accounts can be invested in? And probably they are going to be managed by government. That is what I am suggesting. There are going to be limits on what that individual can invest in, but something like what Members of Congress and Federal employees are allowed to do now in the Thrift Savings Account, they would have some choices of how that money is invested.

Of course, the older one gets, the more reasonable it is to put more money in bonds and less money in equities. But just consider that for the last 100 years, any 14-year-period we have not averaged less than that 7 percent growth in equities. So if the economy and government and an indexed stock fund is not going to increase, then this country is not going to be economically well off anyway to pay Social Security benefits.

But the fact is that it is going to be, and when I suggest that there should be a program that is going to help the economy, requiring this additional savings and investment, that is what makes our economy tick. Our savings rate is one of the lowest in the world, but if we can encourage greater savings and investment, then we have a greater assurance that our economy is going to stay strong.

I am going to finish up with a fact that the United States, compared to other countries, has not done very well in moving into a system of having individually owned accounts. The U.S. trails many other countries. In the 18 years since Chile offered the PRAs, the Personal Retirement Accounts, 95 percent of Chilean workers have created accounts. Their average rate of return has been 11.3 percent per year. Among others, Australia, Britain, and Switzerland offer worker PRAs.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reminding our Members that the Supreme Court on two occasions now have said that there is no entitlement for Social Security benefits, that government simply has put in a tax on people on the one hand, and on the other hand they are providing benefits that is called Social Security. But twice now the Supreme Court has said there is no entitlement.

Just because you paid into Social Security does not entitle you to take Social Security benefits. I mention that because the threat is, with Congress in a desperate situation, they are going to tend to reduce benefits. You can reduce benefits by reducing the COLA increase per year, you can reduce benefits by saying that you are going to have to retire at an older age, and you can reduce benefits by increasing taxes on individuals.

So I just plead with my colleagues, I plead with the American people, to be vigilant this coming election, and ask your candidates that are running for President or for United States Senator or for this U.S. House of Representatives, have you written or signed onto legislation that is going to keep Social Security solvent?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Barry Beringer, Chief Cousel of the House Science Committee, who passed away last week at the age of 57.

Originally from New Jersey, Barry graduated from Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA in 1968 with a bachelor's degree in political science.

He received his law degree three years later from American University Law School in 1971. After working for several years in the Reagan Administration as Associate Undersecretary of Economic Affairs in the Department of Commerce, Barry began working for the Science Committee in 1989.

I met Barry when I came to Congress in 1993. Like many Congressional freshmen, I was eager to go to work on getting many of my ideas incorporated into Federal policy, but I had little understanding of the politics and processes of Capitol Hill. It was Barry who in many ways served as my mentor as I learned about policymaking in the House. He was always available to answer questions, and was an extremely patient and knowledgeable resource for members. He had the highest respect of members of Congress and his colleagues in the House. More importantly, Barry was a caring man and a great friend to all of us who knew and worked with him.

I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to Barry's wife Bonnie and their two children during this difficult time. He will be deeply missed by all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that there are indications that we are having an economic recovery. In both the third and fourth quarter, we are looking at economic expansion much greater than what was earlier predicted. But this still leaves a great obligation for this Chamber and the Senate and the White House to look at the reality of the situation where we are spending more money than what is coming into government. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the last fiscal year of 03 we will have a deficit of $562 billion. This fiscal year for 2004, we are going to have a deficit, which means spending over and above revenue of $640 billion. That does not include the $87 billion for Iraq.

We need to start looking not only at the debt burden that we are leaving our kids and our grandkids, but the unfunded liabilities. These are promises that we have made in programs such as Social Security where we do not have enough money to pay promised benefits. We need to consider all of these unfunded liabilities and the deficit along with the mounting cost of servicing this debt. And I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring my Social Security bill, H.R. 3055.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2608) to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2608, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that I am a fiscal conservative; so in evaluating this bill, we looked at the justification for an authorized spending that is going to move us closer to being able to deal with earthquakes, to mitigate their damage.

There is no question that damaging earthquakes are inevitable however infrequent they may be. Some of our evaluation reported that annual damages from earthquakes in the United States are about $4.4 billion. This is annual. What we did in this bill is a slight reduction in the authorization; from the prior years. In California, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the magnitude was 6.7; and it was the most costly earthquake in history, amounting to over $40 billion.

Of course, even though the State of California is very aggressive in trying to work with earthquakes and paying for some of the damages and working in their research to mitigate those damages; through FEMA, our Federal Emergency Management Agency, all of the taxpayers in the United States contribute to paying for some of the damage by earthquakes. So if we can mitigate that damage through research, which helps us engineer buildings and bridges and roadways that are less vulnerable to earthquakes, we are going to, by far, save more money than we are spending on this authorization bill.

The west coast, California, and certainly that area of the country, is assumed to be the location of earthquakes. But that is not the only part of the country that is very vulnerable. In fact, Alaska is more vulnerable than California in terms of the risk from earthquakes. The recent massive earthquake of 7.9 magnitude in Alaska was right where the Alaskan oil transline went through.

We heard testimony before our Committee on Science earlier this year that that quake went relatively unnoticed simply because of the extra precautions and wisdom of people like Lloyd Cluff, who recognized that this pipeline was being built over a vulnerable earthquake area and so he, in effect, built a flexable cradle for that pipeline. So when the earthquake happened, the pipeline was not so rigid and it withstood that huge quake. Without current technology and foresight damage to that pipeline could have cost billions.

There are 39 States that are within zones where the probability of an earthquake occurring is great, and recent research indicates that areas in the eastern and central United States are at greater risk than we ever thought. A 19th century quake in Missouri actually rang church bells in Boston. So the threat is there and the justification to be better prepared, to even possibly with new seismic technology increase the alert time by maybe 8 or 9 or 10 seconds can help us to be better prepared such as immediately shutting off gas lines, et cetera.

We are moving ahead in NEHRP, and so I commend the Democrats and Republicans for working with all of the agencies and organizations involved to develop this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just urge that our appropriators and the Senate look carefully and hopefully will quickly adequately fund the efforts that we have put forth in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the committee totally agrees with the concerns of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). What we did in this bill is we increased the authorization of NIST from $2.5 million up to $8 million; but we will work with NIST, we will work with the appropriators because adequate funding is necessary.

The management, moving the management from FEMA, the lead agency management from FEMA to NIST, was a difficult decision in our committee; but we ended up with unanimous agreement because of the new obligations that have been put on FEMA as they go into Homeland Security. We felt that as the lead agency NIST could dedicate the kind of time and organization needed. So there is somewhat of an increased responsibility.

In conclusion, we will work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) to try to make sure that adequate funding is available.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for bringing us the kind of information and dedication that she has to try to make this a better bill and to try to have government do a better job in terms of mitigating the consequences of earthquakes.

And I would mention that it is not just this country that NEHRP helps. We work worldwide in trying to share the research that we have done to help reduce the consequences of earthquakes all over the world. I think it is appropriate in terms of understanding that I just give a brief background on some of the agencies that are involved.

NEHRP is a long-term comprehensive interagency earthquake hazard reduction mitigation program. It was established in Congress in 1977, and four agencies participate in this effort. We have FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS which has done a fantastic job in this area; the National Science Foundation, which is under the purview of our Subcommittee on Research because of the tremendous research efforts that we are making in this arena; and of course, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Each agency has distinct responsibilities to undertake in support of the overall program goals. NSF, with the geoscience, the engineering, the economic and social aspects of earthquakes; USGS carries out both the basic and applied Earth science and seismic research and monitoring; and FEMA has been responsible for overall coordination of the program, education outreach and implementation of research results, and now we are asking NIST as the lead agency to take a little larger role to conduct the research and development in earthquake engineering aimed at improving building design codes and construction standards.

Also, there needs to be additional support to reducing the damages from earthquakes. In addition to our efforts in government, I would call on the insurance industry to consider lowering its insurance rates for those municipalities and for those individuals who comply and build their structures to be more resistant to earthquake damage. It seems logical that if there is extra spending of money to protect against earthquakes in the building structures, whether they are municipal bridges, highways, buildings, or residential structures, that the insurance industry should consider encouraging the effort with lower premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we should appreciate the bipartisan support and the support of the government agencies that are involved in this program. Certainly we know that earthquakes cannot be prevented, but we can mitigate their impact; and that is what this bill does. I ask for all Members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alan and Kristine Yeadon of Jerome, MI. The Yeadons have been selected to receive the National ``Angels in Adoption'' Award for their tireless effort to care for the children of Michigan. On this date, September 30, 2003, the Congressional Adoption Institute will present this award at ceremonies in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC.

Alan and Kristine have their home in Somerset Township, MI and are active participants at Somerset Congregational Church. Alan is a successful engineer. More importantly, however, Alan and Kristine have fostered children for the last 3 years. In that time they fostered 13 children and raised five of their own.

When Alan and Kristine Yeadon first applied for foster parenthood they asked for children younger than their own. Their oldest child at the time was 12. Their first placement turned out to be three teenage children and an infant! The Yeadons quickly found that older children were a good fit for their family. Currently, children ranging from 1-15 years old live in their home.

They began their foster parenthood after seeing firsthand the great need for parents. Kristine's parents took in foster children. Alan participated in the Kinship program. They had the time, concern, and love to share with children and their families. Today, the Yeadons are adopting a daughter to add to their ever-changing family.

They have had many successes. Some children returned to a better life with their biological parents, some were placed with relatives, and others are ready for adoption. In addition to helping these foster children, Alan and Kristine believe that this experience benefited their own children. ``All of our children have made many adjustments along the way. It has not always been easy for them but the lessons they have learned and the great amount of compassion, understanding, acceptance, and flexibility they now possess will stay with them always.''

On behalf of Congress, I offer our thanks and congratulations for their tireless efforts to help others. It is their kind of dedication that makes America great.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk for 5 minutes on the challenge that faces this Congress and America in terms of the growing debt and the growing unfunded liabilities. ``Unfunded liabilities'' means the promises that government has made, but it needs money to come from someplace to keep the promises we have made, and Social Security is one of those promises.

We started Social Security in 1934, and Congress in effect said that instead of people going over the hill to the poorhouse, like they did after the Great Depression money should be saved for retirement, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said let us have a program where we have forced savings during your working years, and that will give you more security, ``social security,'' in your retirement years.

So we started the program in 1935, and it was based on current workers paying in their taxes to pay for benefits for current retirees, sort of a pay-as-you-go program. I like the cartoon where Uncle Sam was explaining this to a young worker how Social Security worked, and said, ``Well, now, here is a list of names. You put your name on the bottom of the list. You pay everybody on the top of the list, and eventually your name will be on the top of the list and everybody below you will be sending you a check in your retirement.''

It is a pay-as-you-go program, sort of like a chain letter. But the problem is, there are fewer and fewer names under that top name on the list as we are looking at a declining birth rate and a longer lifespan.

The number of people working, for example, in 1940 was 47 people working, paying in their Social Security tax, for every one retiree. Today we are down to three people working paying in their Social Security tax for every one retiree.

So what we have done of course, is over the years every time we hit a problem of not having enough money, we do one of two things, or sometimes both. We either reduce benefits or increase taxes or a combination. That is what we did in 1983. We reduced benefits and increased taxes, so temporarily we have a little surplus coming in for Social Security.

This chart shows what I think should be everybody's goal as we look at saving Social Security. Number one, continue to provide retirement security for the elderly; number two, give young people an opportunity to improve their retirement prospects; number three, benefit the economy instead of burdening it. That is what my bill does.

It seems like every Member of Congress, the House, the Senate and White House, should be willing to agree to this kind of a change, because what we are heading for is insolvency of Social Security. In fact, in 4 years that part of Social Security, the trust fund that pays disability benefits, if you get hurt on the job, is going to be broke. There is not enough money coming in. Just 4 years. In 12 years, we are going to not have insufficient money coming in from the payroll tax to pay promised retirement benefits.

Now, people give complicated explanations of what we might do to save the program, but really there is, again, one of two choices, or a combination. You either increase the money coming in, or you decrease the money going out, or a combination.

That is what I am doing in my Social Security bill that I just introduced. It reduces the money going out, number one, by changing wage inflation for calculating future retiree benefits to a CPI, normal inflation. It slows down the increase in benefits for high-income retirees. For income, instead of the average 2.7 percent return that the average retiree is going to get on Social Security, we increased that to a minimum of 3.7 percent.

I think probably the challenge that we have ahead of us is somehow convincing Americans that there is a real problem. It is a problem that is demagogued over the years. We have got to deal with it. We have to stand up to the issue. I am disappointed that there are only 26 Members of the House and Senate that have ever signed on to a Social Security bill that keeps Social Security solvent. It is an important program.

We have almost 80 percent of our retirees today that depend on Social Security for a majority of their retirement income. It is something that we cannot afford to let go broke.

Look, we are digging some deep holes for ourselves in terms of overspending every year. We are overspending this year $540 billion. It is going to be over $700 deficit spending next year. You add that on to approximately $11 trillion of unfunded liability for Social Security and the other promises that we have made to veterans, the other promises we have made to civil servants and people working for government, and you must agree it is time Congress stood up to the issue. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that everybody looking at a congressional candidate this next election asks them how they are going to save Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Thomas C. Mohr of Hillsdale, MI as a friend, a great American, and most recently for being named Michigan's ``Clerk of the Year.''

Selected by a seven-member panel, Mr. Mohr was honored for over 15 years of service to the state and as the Hillsdale County Clerk. Mohr has been active in community service and is responsible for recording the official county statistics as well as criminal and civil trials in Circuit Court. Additionally, Mr. Mohr has supervised elections for the past 15 years in a most professional manner.

Thomas Mohr puts his job first and personal feelings second. It's no wonder then that the local newspaper calls him a leader of Hillsdale. Peers say he is ``dependable, trustworthy, and very conservative.''

Mr. Mohr has a long list of accomplishments: a former teacher in Litchfield, a U.S. Navy Veteran, township clerk, county commissioner, and father of two. In addition to his County Clerk duties he serves as the treasurer for the Michigan Association of County Clerks. He received his Bachelor of Science degree from Central Michigan University and Masters in Public Administration.

Mr. Mohr sets an example for all of us as he has quietly gone about his life and work. As Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The first duty of an American citizen, then, is that he shall work in politics; his second duty is that he shall do that work in a practical manner; and his third is that it shall be done in accord with the highest principles of honor and justice.'' Thomas C. Mohr has done just that.