Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would reduce funding for research through the National Science Foundation, NSF, polar research and to briefly discuss the overall NSF funding. Last year, the President signed into law my bill to re-authorize NSF, allowing for a doubling of funds over the next five years. Among other things, the bill expanded federally funded basic research efforts at America's colleges and universities. Improving science and math education in our country is important because this is how we train new generations of scientists and inventors. Just one example of how crucial NSF is; approximately half of the U.S. Nobel Prize laureates in science and engineering have received NSF research grants. Some of these Nobel laureates gained experience through polar research.

In addition to the purely scientific value that NSF contributes to society, the technological advancements that have resulted from cutting-edge basic research have been the primary force behind the economic and productivity gains of the last fifty years. I am disappointed that the overall increase for NSF is a lessor reduction then last year. Good research leads to the development of new and better products and more efficient ways to produce those goods at a competitive cost. Some examples of what basic federal R&D funding has given us today are the silicon chip, internet, web browsers, supercomputers resulting in more products and more efficient production. The world is getting more competitive, and we must keep finding ways to develop high-quality products that people want at a competitive cost.

Under my re-authorization bill that passed last year, NSF is authorized at nearly $6.4 billion for fiscal year 2004, $4.8 billion of that for research. The bill that we are considering today would only appropriate $5.6 billion for NSF, with $4.3 billion designated for research.

I understand that given the economy and the budget situation, it is necessary for Congress to make tough choices with funding. Still, I am disappointed that the bill before us today would fund NSF at nearly $800 million less than its authorization level. Due to a lack of funding, NSF is currently forced to reject more than 30 percent of its highest rated peer-reviewed proposals. In addition, more resources are needed to invest in emerging fields of research like cyber security, information technology, and nanotechnology.

Mr. Chairman, this Nadler amendment would reduce funding for NSF polar research by $5 million dollars. In light of the significant funding shortfalls that NSF already faces, it would be unwise to drain any more money out of this research program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brian Bowker on the completion of his doctorate in animal sciences from Purdue University and his dedication to science and agriculture.

As a Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) Congressional Science Fellow, Dr. Bowker serves as Legislative Assistant in my office. I've had the benefit of Brian's expert advice on agricultural issues. I have seen the extent of his education but more importantly the extent of his character. Brian has reached an educational level that few people obtain, yet he desires to learn more and to use that knowledge to benefit others. He understands the concept, which few of us really embrace, that as Albert Einstein said, ``Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.''

The recipient of numerous awards and honors, Brian has received the Featherston Outstanding PhD Award and the Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award. In addition, the Animal Science Department of Purdue University named Brian the outstanding freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior. He has received the Oakley M. Ray Distinguished Leadership Award, the Millard Plumlee Scholarship, and the Richard A. Pickett Scholarship, just to name a few. Also, Brian is a member of the American Meat Science Association and the American Society of Animal Sciences.

Therefore, on behalf of the Congress of the United States, I commend Dr. Brian Bowker for receiving his PhD, and thank him for his service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Chelsea High School softball team who last month won their second consecutive Division II state championship. The Bulldogs compiled an impressive record of 36-4 and swept through the 2003 state playoffs outscoring their opponents 44 to 1 in the seven playoff games.

The Chelsea girls softball program has, over the past two seasons, compiled an outstanding overall record of 72-7-1 in winning back-to- back state championships. I salute the hard work and dedication of the players: Julia Arnold, Brynna Darwin, Cynthia Johnson, Katie Herman, Becky Sprague, Carly Daniels, Nicole Collins, Ali Mann, Missy Morcom, Alise Augustine, Katrina Moffett, Jenna Connelly, Danielle McClelland, Anna Arend, Mary Kate Setta and Christyna Toon.

We in Congress also pay tribute to the coaches whose personal interest, strong support and active participation played no small part in the team's success: Bob Moffett, Mark Musolf, Chris DeFant, Jenni Driskill, Kathy Sprawka, and head coach Kim Reichard. Under their guidance, the players have refined not only their athletic talents but learned the value of sportsmanship, the joy of camaraderie, the importance of teamwork, how to become a leader and motivate others, the rewards of hard work, how to deal with success and failure. These valuable lessons combined with a good education will serve them long after their days on the diamond have passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, athletics and leadership, that I am proud to salute Kaitlin Kelly Sharkey, a 2003 graduate summa cum laude of Northwest High School in Jackson, Michigan. Kaitlin is an exceptional individual and possesses an outstanding record of achievement in her academic career. Valedictorian of her class with a 4.0 grade point average, Kaitlin was also vice president of the senior class, secretary of the National Honor Society, and captain of the school's winning Social Studies team in the Jackson County Academic Games.

Throughout her high school career, Kaitlin has also excelled in athletics--earning 10 Varsity letters and the prestigious 12 Season Award for participating in 3 sports all 4 years in high school. As captain of her tennis and volleyball teams she received all-area and MVP honors. She also played three seasons at second base for the Mounties varsity softball team, earning honorable mention all conference her senior year. She received the Marine Corps Scholar Athlete Award and was selected 2003 Female Athlete of the year.

She devoted her energies to community service as well--as a member of a student advisory council for drug education and a first grade religious instruction teacher. She was awarded the Meijier Dignity and Respect Award.

Therefore, on behalf of the Congress of the United States, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending our highest praise to Kaitlin Kelly Sharkey. To this remarkable young woman, we extend heartfelt good wishes as she pursues her educational goals and for all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, athletics and leadership, that I am proud to salute Meghan Mayday, a 2003 graduate of Hanover-Horton High School in Jackson, Michigan.

Meghan is an exceptional individual and possesses an outstanding record of achievement in her academic career. A member of the Hanover- Horton National Honor Society, Meghan enjoyed an active and fruitful high school experience--participating in school plays; concert, marching and pep bands; basketball and golf. But it was in track, specifically running cross country, that Meghan has demonstrated her exceptional will to succeed. Quite simply, she decided she was going to be a successful cross country runner and she did it. To quote her coach, Dean Blackedge, ``Mighan willed herself to be great.'' Having started to season without having run a single varsity race, Megan finished it as an All-American. She is the first runner at Havover- Horton High School to win a regional meet, and the first athletic at the school to earn All-American status. A leader who inspires others to go give their best, she captained both the cross country and track teams. She's been honored by the U.S. Marines as a Distinguished Athlete, and named Female Athlete of the Year.

Therefore, on behalf of the Congress of the United States, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending praise to Meghan Mayday. To the remarkable young woman, we extend heartfelt good wishes as she pursues her educational goals and for all her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I am going to present sort of a tutorial on Social Security, and if my audience listens up, if they can stick with me for the next 25 or 30 minutes, they might know as much about Social Security as a lot of individuals in Washington, which is probably one of our most successful programs, but probably one of the programs that is most at risk as we continue to overspend, as we continue to have government take the surplus coming in from the Social Security taxes and spend them on other programs.

Social Security is the largest Federal expenditure. As we view this chart, we can see Social Security is now spending 22 percent of the total Federal budget, 22 percent. This is more than defense, more than all of the discretionary programs of the 13 appropriation bills that we are agonizing over, more than all of the other entitlements put together, more than Medicare and Medicaid combined. Social Security is spending $475 billion this year in 2003.

The risk to Social Security is that we are faced in the demographics of having the baby boomers retire. So 76 million baby boomers are going to start retiring in 2010, and that means they stop paying into the Social Security tax and they start taking out at the highest rate.

Now, the next chart represents the predicament. As we see, the overall gross Federal debt between now and 2013 continues to increase to approximately $10 trillion in the next 10 years. Where the debt held by the public eventually, starting 10 years from now, diminishes a little bit, the overall debt is continuing to increase. And that is because government is borrowing every penny coming in in surplus from all the trust funds, from the Medicare Trust Funds, from the Medicaid A and B Trust Funds, from the Social Security Trust Fund, from the Federal Retiree Pension Trust Funds; government is taking this extra money, not saving it, but spending it on other government programs.

So the challenge is, how is government going to pay this money back? In this case that we are talking about tonight, how is government going to come up with the money to pay back what is now $1.7 trillion that it owes Social Security, plus the unfunded liability of Social Security in the future?

If we take how much money we would have to put in in investment accounts today, over and above the tax revenues coming in from Social Security, it would take $9 trillion invested today, and remember our Federal budget is about $2 trillion a year, it would take about $9 trillion invested today to accommodate the demands and needs of Social Security if we are going to keep our current promises.

This chart sort of represents in the short term surpluses that end about 2017; and the future deficits are in red at the bottom right hand of the page. This represents the trillions of dollars that are going to be needed in the future over and above tax revenues. So what do we do about it?

One of the problems is that every time Democrats might suggest a solution, Republicans suggest, well, they are trying to ruin Social Security. More often, every time a Republican offers a solution, which have been several since I have been in Congress, starting in 1993, the Democrats have demagogued it the next election and scared seniors; and so everybody has sort of kept their hands off. They have been afraid to deal with this problem of saving Social Security.

Let me go through some of these charts. Our pay-as-you-go retirement system will not meet the challenge of the demographic change. The demographic change is twofold: one, a slowing down of the birthrate and an increase in the length of time people live. So since more people are retiring, that means there are more people going to be taking out from Social Security than are putting into it. And make no mistake, there is no savings account with our name on it. There are no savings in Social Security. The money comes in from the Social Security FICA tax one week and within the next 10 days it is sent out to recipients.

In terms of the demographics, in 1940 there were 42 people working, paying in their Social Security tax, for every one retiree. By the year 2000, there were three people working, paying in their Social Security tax for every one retiree. And the estimate is, by 2025 there will only be two people working for every individual that is taking out Social Security benefits. So what we have done, of course, is increase the taxes on those working to make it tougher and tougher. So right now we have most working people in the United States paying more in the Social Security tax than they do in the income tax.

Insolvency is certain. The actuaries know how many people there are in this country and they know when they are going to retire. We know people will live longer in retirement. In 1934, the average age of death was 62, but the retirement benefits started for full benefits at 65. So most people did not live long enough to collect Social Security. So the system went along very handily. And then people started living longer and longer, and today the average age of death is about 80 years old for a female and about 76 years old for a male. We know how much these individuals will pay into Social Security. We know how much they are going to take out.

Payroll taxes will not cover benefits starting in the year 2017, and the shortfalls will add up to $120 trillion between 2017 and 2775. That means $120

trillion we are going to need over and above the tax revenues coming in for Social Security.

I mentioned the $9 trillion. The $9 trillion is in today's dollars. If we came up with the $9 trillion today and put it in a savings account, that $9 trillion plus the interest on that savings account equals the $120 trillion between 2017 and 2075.

Just to alert, Madam Speaker, Social Security right now is not a good investment. When we started in 1934, instead of all these people, after the Great Depression, going over the hill to the poorhouse, we decided to have enforced savings. So we came up with a program, FDR did, that said, Look, we are going to take some of your earnings today so that you have some social security of having some money coming in, not having to go to the poorhouse when you retire.

2145

If you happened to retire in 1960, it took 2 years to get everything back that you and your employer put into Social Security. By 1980, it took 4 years after your retirement. By 1995, you had to live 16 years after you retired to break even on the money you paid into Social Security. And by 2005 it is going to be 23 years you have to live if you retire year after next. 2015 and all the way through 2025, you are going to have to live 26 years after you retire. Remember, in 1983 when we changed the Social Security law, the so-called Greenspan Commission, we said that we were going to index the retirement age upwards so that we have started going up to a full entitlement age of 67; and we started that last year, increasing gradually over the next 20 years, moving from 65 to 67 for the maximum income from Social Security retirement.

Some people have suggested, well, the government has borrowed $1.3 trillion of the surpluses that come in from Social Security. If government would just keep their hands off that extra money coming in, we would be okay. But I did this chart represented by these two red graphs to represent we would not just be okay. What government owes the Social Security trust fund, what we have borrowed since there has been surpluses coming into Social Security, we have borrowed $1.3 trillion. The shortfall, even after the repayment of the trust funds, is going to be $10 trillion. That is just to take us up to 2075. So huge problems of coming up with the dollars.

And how do you do that? Do you raise taxes or do you cut benefits or do you increase borrowing? The system is stretched to its limits and 78 million baby boomers begin retiring in 2008. Social Security spending exceeds tax revenues; the estimate is now 2017. It depends partially what happens to the economy in the next couple of years, whether that comes down to 2016 or not. And Social Security trust funds go broke, even if all the money borrowed is paid back, in 2037, although the crisis is going to arrive much sooner.

Let me just explain a little bit why the crisis arrives in 2017. That is because there is not going to be any money to come up with to pay back the trust funds. There is no savings. The trust funds have been already spent on other programs. You either have to borrow more money or you have to increase taxes or you have to cut benefits.

A lot of argument, should we be getting a better, a real return on the Social Security money paid in by American workers? When Franklin Delano 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 in all of the literature sent out in those years 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.

Going to the archives, it is interesting, researching what happened to the debate on Social Security when it was debated in 1934 and 1935. The Senate actually said that it can be for savings and it would go into privately owned accounts where government could not own and control the money but individuals would own their own savings account but they could not take the money out of the account; but if they died, for example, before they reached retirement age, it would be their money that went into their estate. The House enacted a separate legislation that said, no, it has got to be a government account, everything comes into government, government then guarantees the payments that would go out to retirees. Then it went to conference committee. In conference committee, the negotiations went with the House version, so it became a government program with no personally owned savings account.

I just think it is important, Madam Speaker, to mention that there is no entitlement to Social Security. It has gone before the Supreme Court twice now. In two different occasions, the Supreme Court has said that the Social Security taxes are simply a tax, the benefit program is a benefit program enacted by Congress, signed by the President, and there is no entitlement just because you pay in the Social Security tax.

The diminishing returns of your Social Security investment, the real return of Social Security is 1.7 percent today. That is what the return is if you live the average age and you pay in the average payments in your FICA tax, you and your employer. The average return on that investment is 1.7 percent. For some workers, it is actually going to be negative. Minorities, for example, young black men die at an age of, I think it is 61 years old now. That means that they pay in most of their working life, but unless some money goes to their spouse, they do not take any money out. So minorities on an average have a negative return on the money they pay into Social Security. The average is 1.7 percent.

But the marketplace, if you were to invest it in the marketplace, and in this chart I have a 7 percent real return, that means 7 percent over and above inflation, that is what the Wilshire 5000, the 5,000 stocks in the Wilshire index funds have returned between 1993 even with these last 3 bad years, still between 1993 and 2003 have returned a real rate of return of 7 percent, 7 percent over and above inflation.

So how do we capitalize on some of that, that better return to start giving retirees something better than the bad investment now they have in Social Security, something closer to that 7 percent? The U.S. trails other countries in savings as far as its retirement system that allows individuals to own some of that money. In the 18 years since Chile offered the personal retirement savings accounts, 95 percent of Chilean workers have created accounts and their average return up till today has been 11.3 percent return. Again, compare that to what Social Security is giving workers in America, Madam Speaker, that is, a 1.7 percent return. Among others, Australia has done it to allow personally owned accounts. Britain has allowed their workers to have part of their retirement in personally owned accounts. Switzerland and many other countries offer personally owned accounts that government cannot get their hands on.

This chart just tries to emphasize that there is no Social Security account with your name on it. I wanted to quote a government source, the Office of Management and Budget, that said when I was on the Committee on the Budget, testified that these trust fund balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures but only in a bookkeeping sense. They are claims on the Treasury that when redeemed will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public or reducing benefits or reducing other government expenditures. This was the OMB statement before the Committee on the Budget.

Economic growth will not fix Social Security. Some people have said, well, if we can get the economy going, we will have enough revenue coming in to solve the Social Security problem. But because benefits are directly related to how much you are making, how much you are earning, so the more you make and the more you pay in, the more you get when you retire, so eventually it is going to catch up with you. I do this by these four blips. 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. Growth. Makes the numbers look better now but leaves a larger hole to fill later. The administration has used these short-term advantages, I think, as an excuse to do

nothing. I am not talking about the Bush administration; I am talking about the last four administrations that have found it easier to put off decisions on correcting and saving Social Security simply because it is a tough political issue. It is easy to go to seniors. We have almost two-thirds of our seniors now that depend on Social Security for most of their retirement income. So you can understand how it is easy to scare these individuals in an election. The demagoguery I think is unfair to the future of our kids and our grandkids who are going to have to come up with the tax money to pay future benefits.

This Congress is a political body. We are not going to cut Social Security benefits probably. What we are going to do is cut Social Security benefits in a way you do not really realize they are going to be cut. Like when President Clinton came in, we cut Social Security benefits by increasing the taxes that you have to pay on the Social Security benefits that government pays you. Over the years, we have come up with gradually increasing the retirement age. We have come up with provisions where we increase the tax rate that you have to pay into Social Security to accommodate today's needs to pay current benefits. If you are going to depend on politicians to correct the problems for Social Security, without some pressure and some questions from constituents around the country in this next year's election, I hope everybody would ask the Presidential candidates, would ask every candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, would ask the one- third of the Senators that are going to run for reelection, what is your solution to save Social Security? It is easy for them to slide over and say, well, boy, we have really got to work on this, this is my top priority. Then follow up with a question, What is your priority? What is your solution?

The biggest risk is doing nothing at all. Social Security has a total unfunded liability, as I mentioned, of over $9 trillion. The Social Security trust funds contain nothing but IOUs. To keep paying promised Social Security benefits, as I mentioned, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly 50 percent. The payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly 50 percent, or benefits will have to be cut by 30 percent.

This is a record of what we have done in the past. And what we have done in the past might be an indication of the dangers we face in the future. In 1940, we had a rate for Social Security on your FICA tax of 2 percent on the first $3,000 you made. That is 1940. And so the maximum tax was $60. By 1960, we decided, well, we do not have enough money to pay benefits, we are going to increase the taxes again; so we increased it to 6 percent on the first $4,800 for a maximum of $288. By 1980, it got up to 10.16 percent. The base was up to $25,000. Now the rate in 2000 is 12.4 percent. In 2000, it was $76,200. Today it is $82,000 in terms of the base that you pay that 12.4 percent on.

As we are going to see by this next chart, most workers in America pay more now in the Social Security tax, as we have just continued to up and up the tax and up and up the base that that rate is applied to, so 78 percent of Americans pay more in the Social Security tax than they do pay in the income tax.

If nothing else, it should be of pocketbook interest for Americans to say, look, do not dig yourself the kind of hole where you are going to have to increase taxes on us again, or do not dig yourself the kind of a hole where you are going to dramatically play creative financing games to lower our benefits.

Personal retirement accounts, they do not come out of Social Security. So they become part of their Social Security retirement benefits. A worker will own his or her own retirement account and limit it to safe investments that will earn more than the 1.9 percent paid by Social Security.

I said 1.7 percent. It is between 1.7 and 1.9 percent.

So can we come up with a way that does not give the snake oil salesman on Wall Street the opportunity to sell bad investments to individuals that still might own that retirement account? And the answer is yes. Here in Congress we have what we call a Thrift Savings Plan. We limit the investments that a Member of Congress can make, and they are sort of a savings investment plan that they take some of the salary out, the employer puts some of the money in, and it is limited to certain investments. It is limited to index stocks, index bonds, government bonds, index small cap funds, and they just added a foreign investment, but they have their choice of balance between those investments.

And that kind of limitation is what we need in any Social Security bill that allows individuals to own their own account. We have got to say, look, they can only take this out for retirement, but it is going to be their money. If they die, it goes into their estate, unlike the current situation where they might get funeral expenses, but if they die without a wife or without a family, then they are going to have problems.

I think it is important also as we face this next election year, and Social Security is going to be part of the debate this next election, from Presidential debates on down, Social Security is coming to the head with 76 million Americans retiring, starting to retire in just 4 years.

But do the Members know what else is going to happen in 4 years? The part of the Social Security program, the trust fund that pays benefits for disability and for beneficiaries for the spouses of workers, that trust fund is going to go broke. There is not going to be enough money in that trust fund in another 5 years to pay benefits, and that is a huge problem. Personal retirement accounts offer more income.

Cato is a think tank organization, sort of libertarian. They are for personal retirement investment accounts, and Cato, in estimating the potential returns of taking 12.4 percent of a person's income that is making $36,000 a year from Social Security, that person would now make $1,280 a month if they had the average return of 7 percent a year over and above inflation, which has happened in the Wilshire 5000 index fund in the last 10 years. They would have $6,500 a month rather than the $1,280.

On the Committee on the Budget, I chaired a bipartisan task force on Social Security. So for over a year we met with the experts throughout this country on what the problem was on Social Security and what the potential solutions were that might best accommodate the shortcomings of Social Security.

One thing we found out is the longer we put off a solution, the more drastic a solution, and that goes back to the fact that Social Security surpluses are going to run out someplace between 2015 and 2017. So if we started using that surplus money today to get a better return, then it is easier than waiting several years or even waiting until a disaster hits and there is no more surplus coming in.

A couple points we came up with in the bipartisan task force, and both sides agreed that private-owned accounts have to be part of the consideration, but we thought that guaranteed-return securities and annuities can be used with personal accounts as part of an investment safety net. So we can go to investment firms right now that will guarantee more than the 1.7 percent Social Security is paying that could result in an absolute guaranteed retirement income of more than what Social Security is paying.

And the problem is, how do we make this shift from a pay-as-you-go program, using every dollar that is coming in from the FICA Social Security taxes and shift it over to a personal investment account so we take that money away from government? That is the challenge, but the longer we put it off, the more drastic the solutions are going to have to be.

Another unanimous agreement was a universal Social Security survivor and disability program needs to be maintained. So nobody, nobody in any proposal that has ever come before Congress is suggesting that we privatize the disability part and the survivor benefit part of this program. In fact, most of the proposed legislation starts out at only taking 2 to 2.5 percent of their income out of the 12.4 percent taxes that are being paid in that could become owned by the worker and limited to safe investments.

And, thirdly, Congress should consider paying for a portion of disability benefits for workers who have been in

the system a short time, using moneys from the general fund, and I think that is reasonable. We have got to have that kind of an insurance program. So part of their Social Security taxes are insurance. That part of the insurance that is spread across America to all workers should not be touched and should not be changed and, in fact, should be guaranteed, if necessary, for money coming out of the general fund.

Six principles of saving Social Security: protect current and future beneficiaries; allow freedom of choice, and that means that if they do not want to go into any private investment account, they do not have to. We can have a program that if they do go into those investment accounts, they can be guaranteed as least as much as Social Security would otherwise pay them.

Preserve the safety net. Preserve the safety net for beneficiaries, preserve the safety net to make sure that nobody in America is going to be impoverished and have less than they would have had under the old Social Security program. Make Americans better off, not worse off. We can do that if we start getting a real return on investment of that money coming in from Social Security and create a fully funded system and no more tax increases. If anything, let us start working at taking less money out of the worker's pocket to accommodate the Social Security system in this country, and we can do that. We can do that by getting a real return and a better return instead of taking all the surplus dollars that are coming in and spending them for other government programs.

I will be introducing my Social Security bill in 1 month when we come back, and that legislation is going to deal with some problems that we now have in Social Security. It is going to deal with more fairness to women. It is going to provide that women that decide to stay home with kids under 6 years can accrue benefits at the average of their total working career for those years that they stay home with children under six. It is going to provide an increase in benefits for surviving spouses that now are asked to live on one income instead of two incomes if their husband dies.

Several other provisions that we are looking at suggest that if they do have a personal savings account and they select the option to have a personal savings account, they would add what the wife makes in terms of 12.4 percent of her income that is allowed to be put in a personal savings account, add what goes into the personal savings account from the man and the wife and add them together and divide by two so each spouse has an equal amount in that personal retirement savings account.

Madam Speaker, I think the legislation is going to be interesting and challenging. I hope we can move ahead with real debate and not demagoguery.

Mr. Speaker, I present a writing by Albert Carey Caswell, one of our Capitol historians, dedicated to the United Kingdom--in honor of Tony Blair's address to the joint session of Congress.

To send our fine sons and daughters off to die, off to

death and war to there throughout the ages, to share such

pain, such grief, such death and gore . . . as together we've

endured mothers & fathers, sisters & brothers, husbands &

wives the more . . . who've lost such loves, oh what a burden

bore.

For we are such fine friends . . . so very far across the

shores as here so lies in time, now etched in history

adorned, such a great tribute to our love . . . as has so

endured lies such a bond from so very far across the shores,

with such unity as woven . . . all throughout time all the

more.

For from these two great nations . . . as there would so

rise a love and kinship, such that wars would not let

despise, that even time and distance . . . still could not

deny as a true and fine meeting of the minds . . . as a

uniting of brothers and sisters . . . as there bringing such

tears to eyes.

For once upon a time . . . from this the great land of

kings and queens of so divine came colonies, from far across

the seas . . . with such splendid people, with such great

dreams, so very fine and with this journey came, a great

revolution of the same . . . as a bond dissolved and wars so

intervened in time.

And as then, throughout the many years as again . . . such

a cherished bond, as so formed here . . . as such a splendid

reconciliation, as so appeared and throughout war worlds &

evils endured, together as friends, to this world we've stood

as one so very clear.

For from this great land has come, such cherished gifts to

us among as our father, our true beloved son . . . one George

Washington, who to this nation his heart has sung and another

such splendid gift . . . that of ``hope'' by a man named

``Bob'' . . . whose America's heart has forever rung.

And to this very day, as spreads so far across the way

ingrained within our very hearts, lies the United Kingdom . .

. for whom we all so pray who have so over the many decades,

made our Nation shine in so many ways, into this promised

land we see today.

And as the years so pass within our hearts we ask, that

this fine bond which we've so made . . . shall to ever last

for this our great love & friendship which has so evolved . .

. recorded now in history, has forever stood steadfast.

Now as such fine friends, so very far across the shores as

so lies such a bond, as one for all and all for one . . .

into our love as poured . . . as lies there forever more

across the highs seas & distant shores, a blessing to two

countries . . . within one another this love shall endure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

This amendment sends a signal to the government of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu that it must abide by its contracts with American and other foreign investors. Five American energy companies built state-of- the-art energy plants in Tamil Nadu. These companies negotiated contracts with the state government to provide energy at a guaranteed minimum rate. However, the government of Tamil Nadu has paid less than this guaranteed rate to the tune of over $130 million.

One of the affected companies, CMS Energy, is based in the 7th district of Michigan. CMS built a state-of-the-art energy plant, providing jobs and training to the Tamil people. It also provides steady energy to support economic development and growth in Tamil Nadu. The government of Tamil Nadu's violation of its contract has cost CMS over $14 million.

The amendment affects only the state of Tamil Nadu. It is not anti- India. It will do nothing to affect other Indian states that respect the sanctity of contracts and provide an excellent environment for the foreign investment that benefits both India and investors. We should not be using our aid to reward governments that do not respect contracts.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, just a very important point, I think bovine spongiform encephalitis, BSE, has never been found in the United States. We have the most strict meat inspection in the world, and if we pass this resolution the danger is that we complicate the inspection of those downed animals. Downed animals in this country do not go into the human food chain without a thorough health safety investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk tonight a little bit about the importance of a college education and some of the laws that this Congress has passed to encourage better savings for education.

Some of the concerns that we need to consider is the fact that individual students and their parents in the future probably are going to be have to be more responsible for coming up with a larger share of the funds for their kids' college education.

Benjamin Franklin once said, ``An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.'' As we move to a high-tech economy, that is certainly truer than ever. High school dropouts earn an average of $360 a week, while high school graduates earn $506. Two-year college graduates earn $598 a week, and 4-year college graduates earn on an average $796. Over a life of work, a college graduate can expect to earn $620,000 more than a community college graduate, $810,000 more than a high school graduate and a whopping $1,115,000 more than a high school dropout.

In addition to dollars, education gives a person more options to do what they want to do in life. This is one of the reasons I tell young people who visit me to study hard. It is also why I started the LeGrand Smith Scholarship Fund for high school seniors from the 7th Congressional District of Michigan. Finally, it is why I have pushed for tax savings for parents and grandparents to save for their children's and grandchildren's education. Simply put, there is nothing that can brighten a young person's future more than education.

The cost of education, while still worthwhile given the earnings difference, it is very expensive. Under present trends, a child born today can expect to pay about $125,000 for 4 years at a State university, about twice that much for a private university. There is a lot of Federal and State government scholarships, tax benefits, work study programs, subsidized loans and financial aid for people in college.

Congress has also created two tax-favored savings programs in recent years that help families save for education, and these two I think are important.

The Coverdell Education Savings Account allows eligible taxpayers to contribute up to $2,000 a year. These contributions are taxable, but the accrued earnings when a person takes them out are not taxable. The accounts are flexible and can be used to pay for educational expenses in grade school, high school or college. They can be even

used to defray the costs of home school education. In addition to tuition, the money can be used for books, supplies, equipment, tutoring, services for children with special needs, Internet access, et cetera. These accounts are open to taxpayers earning less than $220,000 a year for couples.

Another option, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, is the 529 plan. These are tax-deferred educational savings programs that put contributions under management like pension programs. They are often State-sponsored and provide good flexibility. Contributions can be made in a lump sum or in installments, and many States also contribute when a person starts spending that money for a college education. In Michigan, we contribute $1 for every $3 deposited.

I would encourage every friend and family member to think about educational savings for their children, their grandchildren, their nephews, their nieces. The expense of college education is daunting, but investing some now will allow for compound interest and growth over time. For example, even with the current low prospects for a return on earnings, saving just $80 in a month can grow to $31,000 over the 18 years it takes a child to be ready for college. It is important to get started right away.

Mr. Speaker, education is important. Everybody should be looking at the advantages of saving now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and great American.

In a rich life span of 81 years, Alex Canja mentored thousands of young men and women and then, in later life, became an advocate for older citizens.

On his own, without parents, from the age of 11, Alex raised himself, living at the YMCA in Flint, MI and selling newspapers.

Ever the optimist, determined to succeed, he believed that with hard work and honest effort, his dreams could come true. And they did.

At Flint Central High School, he was elected president of the student body. He served in the US Army Air Force returning to the University of Michigan after the war. He became an All-American diver, was captain of the U of M swimming team, and earned a Master's Degree in Education. It was there that he met and courted Esther Giovannone, also known as ``Tess.'' She became his wife and inseparable companion for 56 years.

He served his community. A teacher, deputy superintendent, and camp director, Alex coached swimming, taught English, and with his wife Tess, built the fledgling summer camp ``Camp Flying Eagle'' into one of the finest in Michigan. His goal was to provide young boys and men the many opportunities for personal growth and success he knew they needed.

Alex worked for many years with AARP on behalf of the senior citizens of the United States. He served alongside his wife, Tess Canja, who became the National president of AARP. He brought his wit and wisdom to meetings of the spouses and companions of AARP board members, melding them into a support group for themselves and the Board.

He was very proud of Tess and her accomplishments, but also of his daughter, Debbie, son, Jeff, and grandsons, Brian and Scott. Another son, Paul, preceded him in death.

For Tess and Alex Canja, their immortality will be in their contribution to their community, their state, and their nation.

If the gentleman would yield, I would strongly suggest that this kind of debate is excellent, and I compliment the Blue Dogs and certainly the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). But may I suggest that maybe we are going about the debate the wrong way. Instead of trying to blame each other, let us start looking at how we might work together.

We all know that there is tremendous pressure coming from lobbyists and user groups that want more spending for their particular interests. Lobbyists in this Nation's Capital are very effective. We realize it takes a lot of money to get reelected now. I have got a chart here, but, still, we are all to blame. We all have our special interests.

The Blue Dogs said, let us increase entitlement spending and borrow $400 billion for adding prescription drugs to Medicare. That is because there is a demand out there, and there are enough people that think that it is going to be to their advantage on getting reelected or that it is a good thing to do. But the fact is, that even that kind of a program, which seems to have some merit, tremendously puts a burden on future generations.

So how do we deal with prescription drugs, which is very popular, especially with seniors? How do we deal with some of the Republican proposals for increased spending to try to come together?

There are enough Republicans and enough Democrats that, instead of arguing across the aisle, if somehow we could decide on some of the issues we agree on. The increase in the total debt held by government continues to go up, regardless of the administration.

When there is a Democrat President, we heard a lot of claims that the reason that we had balance in that couple of years was because of the leadership of the White House, and now we are hearing claims that the increased debt and spending is because of the same kind of spending leadership that we might have in this White House.

How do we come up with the kind of policy that is willing to deal with a $9 trillion unfunded liability for Social Security, an estimated $7 trillion unfunded liability if we add prescription drugs to Medicare, and the willingness to continue to spend more money?

I agree with the Blue Dogs, and the Blue Dogs have done a great service, I think, during some of the minority years that Republicans were in the minority, of adding some votes to some of the spending projects that would put some limitations on it.

So it is, of course, my frustration that we do not deal with some of the unfunded liabilities. The unfunded liabilities are just as important to the burden that we are putting on future generations as any increase in discretionary spending or in what we consider the debt subject to the debt limitation.

In fact, we should be holding this discussion based on the total obligation of our kids and our grandkids, and that includes not only the debt and the tremendous interest that we are paying on the debt; I think somebody mentioned $1 billion a day on the debt. But that is at the lowest interest rates we have seen in many years. If interest rates go back to normal, then we are going to be looking at half a trillion dollars a year in interest rates, if not more.

The solution I have might be that we just start working together, instead of blaming each other, to maybe come up with some of the resolves that we should all be working together on.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have a whole 2 minutes, but the Blue Dogs are probably not average for your conference, for your caucus. You are probably more conservative than the average of the total Democrats in the House. Probably this group is about average for the conservative ideas of the Republicans.

But we have 20 Republicans that are very concerned about some issues that maybe increase spending in particular areas. So if we are going to end up accomplishing anything, we have to maybe work together. If the rest of your conference thought the Blue Dog budget was going to pass, my guess is they would not have voted for it. So maybe we need to sneak up on this side and sometimes give you enough votes to pass that Blue Dog budget if we can agree on, ahead of time, with this side of the aisle on what is the reasonable budget.

But we do not like taxes because taxes sort of depress economic expansion. But on the other side of that story, we have to have enough intestinal fortitude, we have to have enough guts, to say that if we are going to spend the money today, we should pay for it.

What we have to do also is live up to coming up with legislation that is going to deal with Social Security, to keep Social Security solvent. Most of my colleagues have not signed any Social Security bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has gone and walked the tight wire on Social Security, as I and some others have, and

that is what we are going to have to do. My guess is this next campaign is going to say, let us try to get together and work with Social Security. We should do it ahead of time.

But in conclusion, I agree. Let us do this again, and let us try to limit the blame from each side and try to work together for some conclusions of how we might work together to accomplish our goals and what my Democrat colleagues suggest are their goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Social Security's coming crisis. The actuaries and trustees of the Social Security Administration have long understood, at least for the last 15 years, the challenges facing our Social Security program. With the impending retirement of the large baby-boom generation starting around 2012, there will be a shift in the proportion of workers paying into Social Security compared to those retirees drawing benefits. As a result, there will not be enough money as benefits going out will exceed taxes coming in by about 2015.

Recently I met with White House staff and political director Karl Rove to encourage Presidential leadership and Republicans and Democrats in Congress to deal with the coming crisis. It is easy to put off. There is even a greater need to face up to the Social Security problem now with the probability of more money being spent for a very expensive prescription drug benefit that probably is going to be added to Medicare.

Let me talk about what is happening to the population 65 years old and older. It is going to increase from currently 37 million today to 75 million in 2035 and to 95 million by 2075, so a huge increase in the number of retirees while the birth rate is going down, so fewer workers to pay their in taxes to cover those benefits. This population will grow much faster than the workers due to increased life expectancy for seniors and lower birth rates. Because Social Security is a pay-as-you- go system, with workers' payroll taxes going immediately to pay benefits to seniors, these demographic changes are going to lead to the program's insolvency in a little over 10 years unless something is done.

The options for Social Security are straightforward, I think. We can increase payroll taxes, which are already

too high. Seventy-five percent of American workers now pay more in the payroll taxes than they do the income taxes. We can cut benefits, or, instead of using all the extra money coming in now from Social Security taxes for other government spending, get a real rate of return on payroll taxes we already collect.

It is obvious, to me at least, that the last option is best, but it cannot work unless we give money time to grow with interest. If we wait another decade to act, there will be no choice but to take drastic action.

I have introduced my own reform proposals in each of my last five terms in Congress. They have been based on slowing down the increase in benefits for high-income retirees and having a real rate of return on some of that extra money coming in. I am working on the final aspects of this year's bill, which I plan to introduce in the next 2 weeks, and as I finalize provisions to make the system more fair for women in this bill.

One thing I have learned over the last decade is that time is running out for reasonable solutions. As I have introduced each new bill in each new session of Congress, the way to solve the problem has been more drastic as we have been giving up the extra funds coming into Social Security that are dwindling, that are running out. It is this situation that gives me such a sense of urgency to act so we can avoid burdening our children and grandchildren with more debt, more taxes, and a failing Social Security system.

Many people are concerned that a Social Security system with worker- owned accounts is unsafe because people might invest poorly or lose their savings. I have studied the problem as chairman of the bipartisan Social Security Task Force and think that investments can be limited and protected as they have been in other countries such as Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Chile. My bill requires the government to start paying back what has been borrowed from the trust fund, and that current payroll taxes go someplace safe, earn interest and end up keeping Social Security solvent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, government officials here in Washington need to act on Social Security, but they are too often focused on the next election to deal with problems that are still a decade away. The truth is that Social Security is headed for a cliff, and if we begin to turn and slow down now, we can avoid it smoothly. If not, a panicky swerve and screeching brake is coming. Let us avoid that. Let us stand up to our responsibility and deal with Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marie Davis of North Adams, Michigan.

A lifelong resident of North Adams, Marie has enriched the lives of others through her outstanding participation in civic and volunteer activities, and her many accounts of life in North Adams.

Marie was born on August 14, 1909 and is a lifelong resident of North Adams. She attended school there and graduated from North Adams High School, and has been a member of the North Adams United Methodist Church. Marie has also represented North Adams as a member of the Women's Congress at the Hillsdale County fair for many years.

Mrs. Davis is best known for her historical accounts of life in North Adams and has kept diaries of all major events that have occurred there. She has written and published five books about local history, including: ``This is North Adams,'' ``100 Years of Sports in North Adams'', ``The History of North Adams Schools,'' and ``1886-2002: The History of the North Adams Fire Department.''

Marie Davis will celebrate her 94th birthday on August 14, 2003, and is still considered North Adams' official historian, continuing to chronicle the lives and events of that community.

North Adams is a small midwestern town with tree-lined streets, friendly neighbors, and thanks to Mrs. Davis, a preserved heritage. I am pleased to recognize the efforts of Marie Davis in preserving the memories, stories and values of the past for present and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, let it be known that it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Josie Cole,

winner of the 2003 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future.

As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Josie is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.

Josie is an exceptional student at Springport High School, and possesses an outstanding record of achievement in high school. Josie has received numerous awards for her excellence in academics and athletics, as well as her volunteer activities with the Eaton Rapids Women's Club and Vacation Bible School. Josie is also proficient in sign language and has signed the National Anthem at athletic events at Springport High School.

Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Josie Cole for her selection as winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.