Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, our dependence on foreign energy leaves American consumers at the mercy of events occurring all over the world, from OPEC production decisions to increases in demand in China and India to terrorism in Saudi Arabia to incipient dictatorship in Venezuela. Reducing our dependence would ease the unpredictable swings in oil prices that now cause such havoc with both family budgets and the larger economy. As Director of Energy at USDA, I served on President Nixon's Oil Policy Commission during the 1970s Arab oil embargo, and I can tell you that this problem is greater today. There are no easy and simple answers.

We can make significant progress, but we have to go about it by making energy independence a national priority and by making investments in many key scientific areas. That's why I supported the energy bill the House passed last year and why I am supporting this legislation. This bill would increase conservation, encourage the use of domestic clean coal, permit greater domestic oil production, add to research into new energy sources, and expand the use of ethanol, biodiesel, biomass, and other renewable energy sources.

As Chairman of the Science Research Subcommittee, the bill includes amendments I offered that were put in the bill, including nitrogen fixation, nuclear power research, clean coal research, and school bus emission reductions. Section 962 of the bill supports research and development programs on biological nitrogen fixation, including plant genomics research. Today's nitrogen fertilizers are made from natural gas. We now have the technology to develop and enhance plants to put nitrogen in the soil. This section of the bill will reduce natural gas consumption and in turn will lower farmers' costs.

This bill contains important provisions to increase domestic fuel production, improve homeland security, and encourage the production of renewable fuels like hydrogen and ethanol. Currently, 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol are put into the American gasoline supply. With this new legislation, 5 billion gallons will be blended in by 2012. Ethanol is an oxygenate and is good for reducing pollution and lessening our dependence on imported fuels. We can grow it in abundance in our own fields every year. However, current ethanol technology production needs a continued tax break. Ethanol is only profitable with efficient production when you use the corn by-products. One bushel of corn makes 2.6 gallons, and 90 percent of ethanol is produced from corn. About 1.7 billion bushels of corn will go towards ethanol under this bill. By guaranteeing that 5 billion gallons of ethanol will be used, American farmers and ethanol producers can invest with confidence that, for at least the next 10 to 15 years, ethanol investments will pay off. By increasing ethanol usage, this bill bolsters corn prices.

Agreement on a modernized energy policy focusing on our nation's innovative strengths in science and technology and a reduction on our reliance on the hostile and politically unstable Middle East for fuel will help achieve energy self sufficiency and improve our country's economy and security for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, for a moment, I want to talk about what our decision should be in this United States Congress as we approach another budget year. One of the big challenges of the Congress of the United States is the overspending of government, because it adds to the debt. Over promising adds to unfunded liabilities, and the question becomes, when is it time for Congress and the White House to start faxing and reducing the growth of the Federal Government?

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time is now. We should start next year making changes in the programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, where Congress has overpromised and does not have the revenue coming in to pay for these programs in the long run. That includes Social Security.

The reason I suggest now is a good time is because the economy is growing very rapidly, and I quote from an article in the U.S. News & World Report by Editor-in-Chief, Mort Zuckerman. ``New jobs are being generated in large numbers, income is growing at twice the rate of last year, and the acceleration is such that we will probably see a 5 percent growth in the gross domestic product. Sixty-one percent of private industries surveyed have added workers. That is the highest in 4 years. Business confidence has surged to a 20-year high, and business spending is exploding. The productivity boom, meanwhile, has made it possible to keep inflation under 2 percent, saving consumers billions. This has been due not just to technology but to tighter and better management controls. We are on a trajectory toward extraordinary growth in the second half of 2004 that will beget stronger job and income growth.''

So the situation that we have been facing is increasing the deficit over $500 billion a year. A deficit is the overspending in one budget year of the Federal Government; spending that exceeds all revenue coming in. This year, we are looking at $536 billion. For the next 3 years, at least, it is going to be over $500 billion at the rate we are going.

And let me put that in a little bit of perspective. We are a country that is about 228 years old. It took the first 200 years of this country to accumulate a debt of $500 billion. Now we are going deeper into debt, more than $500 billion every year. It is time that Congress and the White House did what every family has to do, what every business has to do, and that is tighten our belts and not continue to spend more than the revenue coming in.

Some suggest we should simply increase taxes to accommodate increased spending. I am suggesting that we should prioritize spending, start slowing down the growth in spending, so we are not increasing the size of government by more than three or four times the rate of inflation.

Overspending is one issue that we are laying on future generations; the other is overpromising. Overpromising is what the budget people call unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities are promises that Congress and the White House have made over and above the revenues coming in to pay for those promises. The major categories are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The experts predict that unfunded liabilities of this country now amount to over $73 trillion. The money is not going to be there. And so the only ramification is to load our next generation and our young people with either the responsibility of paying for the interest on that increasing debt or increasing taxes.

It is irresponsible for Congress and the White House not to face up to some of the promises that we have made instead of pretending that the problem somehow is going to be paid for by future generations that are going to have their own problems.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just simply suggest that every voter in America, when they go to candidate forums, ask that individual running for Congress or for the United States Senate or for President what their plans are to save Social Security and their plans to stop the overspending. The kind of debt that we are passing on to future generations is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I was farming and in the Michigan legislature when Ronald Reagan took office. With President Reagan, he not only led the country but restored America's confidence. He renewed our sense of America's goodness and America's greatness. And with that assurance, the American people achieved great things.

When Ronald Reagan came into office, we had Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, we surrendered control over the Panama Canal. Vietnam fell to Communism and Cambodia soon followed. The Sandinistas took control of Nicaragua. The Ayatollah Khomenini held 52 American hostages for more than a year at our embassy in Tehran.

Inflation stood at 13.5 percent and interest rates reached 21 percent. People in America had lost their optimism and pride in our country, and it was Ronald Reagan that brought us back. It was Ronald Reagan who turned it around. He never lost faith in the American people, and he had enough optimism to restore our lost confidence and get America back on its feet.

That is what impressed me so much in those days, that tremendous turn-around from so many being down to being proud again of America. He believed that we could cut taxes and restore our economy, and we did. By the end of his term, the U.S. economy had grown by a third.

He believed we could stand up proudly for American values around the world and stand up to the Soviet Union, and we did. It was President Reagan's resolve that halted the march of Communism in Central America and Afghanistan. It was Reagan's resolve that nurtured the Solidarity movement in Poland, and gave heart to the dissidents of the Soviet Bloc.

Ultimately, it was President Reagan's faith in American ideals and his steadfast determination that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the liberation of Eastern Europe.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it was that leadership and vision for America that made Ronald Reagan special. And now the country mourns and the world remembers in the death of a great world leader.

Mr. Speaker, I share with my colleagues a poem by Albert Carey Caswell.

And to This End

And to this end

Approach Heaven, our True American Hero . . . America's

finest of all true friends

Rest now . . . our Great American Patriot . . . as up to

Heaven your magnificent soul as so ascends.

And to this end

And oh, what to this our Country you have so been

With that, your warm smile and that thick brown hair . . .

and what your heart of gold has so meant.

And to this end

The promise, and your gift . . . the pride and the respect .

. . believing in us as if . . . as you'd begin

Bringing your Nation back to shore, our savior . . . rescuing

& seeing the light that others so ignored.

And to this end

Breaking down walls, hearing the children's calls . . .

wearing your heart on your sleeve

To believe . . . In God and Country, and in all of those

things which made us free . . . all in you we see.

And to this end

To dream . . . to start from nothing, as it would so seem

As was yours . . . this The Great American Dream . . . as is

this, our Nation's greatest of all themes.

And to this end

Returning and The Pride and The Respect . . . to America's

greatest of all assets

Her fighting Women & Men . . . her one true fine reason why

we all can dream, you'd not let us forget.

And to this end

As you brought the light, into that battle against the

darkness . . . this your courageous fight

As you have brought us hope, where there was none . . . as

your journey begun . . . for what was right.

And to this end

Yes, Ron . . . there are jelly beans up in Heaven my dear

friend

And to you, I so salute . . . this one's for you Gipper . . .

as the swollen tear drops so roll down my chin.

And to this end . . . ``Well, There You Go Again''

And now, and forever . . . whenever, I look into our flag . .

. I'll see your face

For such men of heart, such men of warmth & character &

grace, Heaven . . . so surely holds a place.

Mr. Speaker, people say that a truly great athlete is not only gifted himself, he makes those who play with him better. The same is true of President Reagan, who not only led the country, but restored America's confidence. He renewed our sense of America's goodness and America's greatness. And with that assurance, the American people achieved great things.

When Reagan came into office, America was demoralized. President Carter had even spoken of our ``malaise.'' Watergate and our defeat in Vietnam shook our self-confidence. We surrendered control over the Panama Canal which we had built.

The Soviet Union was at the height of its power and communism seemed to be on the march. After Vietnam fell to the communists, Cambodia followed. The Sandinistas took control in Nicaragua and communist insurgencies were under way in Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and were in the process of suppressing the Solidarity movement in Poland.

At the same time, the Shah fell in Iran, and supporters of Ayatollah Khomenini held 52 Americans hostage for more than a year at our embassy in Tehran. Worse, the American military expedition to free them failed in the desert, with the crash of two helicopters and the death of eight servicemen.

The economic situation was just as dire. In 1980, inflation stood at 13.5 percent, and interest rates reached 21 percent. The turmoil in the Middle East sparked gasoline shortages. People waited for hours in line just to fill up their cars and worried about people stealing the gas out of their cars.

People lost their optimism. America no longer seemed special, or a world leader. It felt like the divine spark at the center of the American experiment had gone out.

It was Ronald Reagan who turned it around. He never lost faith in the American people. And he had enough optimism to restore our lost confidence and get America back on its feet.

He believed we could restore our economy--and we did. By 1990 the U.S. economy had grown by a third, or roughly the size of the entire German economy. And 35 million jobs were created.

He believed we could stand up proudly for American values around the world and stand up to the Soviet Union--and we did. It was President Reagan's resolve that halted the march of communism in Central America, and in Afghanistan. It was Reagan's resolve that nurtured the Solidarity movement in Poland, and gave heart to the dissidents of the Soviet bloc. Ultimately it was President Reagan's faith in American ideals that led to the fall of the Berlin wall and the liberation of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

It was that leadership and vision for America that made Ronald Reagan special. Like FDR during the depression, he taught us that there was nothing to fear but fear itself. Like Winston Churchill during World War II, he spoke for an entire nation at a time of stress. It restored our confidence, and that made all the difference.

Let us remember Ronald Reagan. Let us remember what Ronald Reagan wanted for America. He wanted us always to be that shining city on a hill. And he wanted us to know that America's best days always lie ahead.

May God bless Ronald Reagan and Mrs. Reagan and may God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in recognizing the Congressional Pages that will be ending their term of service this week. I would also like to commend Congressman Shimkus and Peggy Sampson for all of their hard work.

The House Pages have made up the critically important support staff that has kept the House floor running smoothly for over 200 years.

The 2003-2004 full-school year Pages were selected from hundreds of applicants, following an incredibly competitive process that scrutinizes their individual achievements in academics, leadership, and commitment to social and civic service.

Page duties include delivering all types of correspondence and legislative materials throughout the Capitol and House Office Buildings, answering phones in the Members' Cloakrooms, relaying messages, flying flags over the Capitol, and preparing the House floor for session.

These pages have spent their entire junior year of high school in Washington, D.C., living, taking classes and working for the House.

The typical day of a Page begins very early at 5:45 am or 6:00 am to eat breakfast prior to attending classes for school at 6:45 am. At 10:00 am, their legislative workday begins and lasts until the House adjourns in the evening; and sometimes into the early morning hour.

These individuals have demonstrated their true commitment to playing an important role in our Nation's future by learning and working in the nation's capitol.

We honor those Pages that have shown the same generosity of spirit, depth of intelligence, and capacity for human service that is so important to leaders.

These exceptional students have consistently displayed their dedication, intelligence and concern throughout their time as a Page in Congress. They stand out among their peers not only because of their many achievements, but also the disciplined manner in which they meet all challenges. Although they have already accomplished a great deal, these young people possess unlimited potential.

The House Pages are young men and women of character, ambition, and initiative, who have made a significant contribution to the United States House of Representatives and already learned well the value of hard work and commitment. Their efforts and dedication is very much appreciated and our best wishes bestowed upon them in all of their future endeavors that I am sure for some will include elected office including Congress. I suspect all will be leaders.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, we extend our thanks and highest praise and congratulations to each Congressional Page.

Mr. Speaker, a highly educated workforce is critical to America's future competitiveness. And the quality of education in America's schools is directly related to the quality of the teachers entrusted with the vital task of educating the Nation's students. Today's students are tomorrow's workforce, and for that reason education is directly linked to America's future competitiveness in a changing economy.

H.R. 4411, the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act, addresses the shortage of highly qualified math and science teachers at the K-12 level. One of the problems is the continuing lack of faculty at the graduate level to train the teachers of tomorrow in these demanding fields. This must be addressed to fortify the pipeline of highly qualified teachers for our Nation's youth. To increase faculty in these high-demand subject areas, the Priorities for Graduate Studies Act will target Federal aid for graduate studies to these subject areas. The bill, introduced by my colleague from Georgia Representative Max Burns, places a priority on the areas of math and science for graduate fellowship programs in the Higher Education Act. Further, this bill reinforces previous Federal efforts in the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' requiring a ``highly qualified'' teacher in every classroom. This bill, along with the other bills being discussed today, also provides State grants to recruit and train teachers. In addition, loan forgiveness programs at the Department of Education and the Noyce Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which seeks to encourage top math and science students to enter the teaching profession, are just some of the initiatives that have been designed to address issues of teacher recruitment and retention.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently testified before the House Education and Workforce Committee and said that strengthening the Nation's education and worker training systems and supporting innovation are essential to creating jobs and sustained economic growth for American families. He said that the U.S. appears to be lagging seriously behind other nations in terms of the quality of education being provided to students at the K-12 level. He quoted a study conducted in 1995 (The Third International Math and Science Study, a project of the International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College) revealing that although our fourth-grade students were above average in both math and science, by the time they reached their last year of high school they had fallen well below the international average.

The quality of America's workforce is inextricably tied to the quality of America's education system. For that reason, advanced degrees in specific subject areas will help to improve the training of our schoolteachers, building upon the quality of elementary and secondary education and, in turn, strengthening the competitiveness of the American worker. The House bill being discussed today recognizes that a shortage of advanced degrees earned in high-demand subject areas such as math and science can create a void from the university level down to K-12 classrooms. To address this shortage, the bill places a priority on these subject areas when awarding graduate level fellowships.

Mr. Speaker, when I have an opportunity to speak with teachers about education, I often ask them if teaching a child math or science is more like lighting a fire than filling a container, at what age they believe the flame of interest for math and science education is sparked and how can we keep it burning. I get all sorts of answers. Some say third grade. Others say kindergarten. But they all generally agree that our greatest challenge is to ensure that all children experience that initial spark to create more interest in science and math.

As Chairman of the Science Research Subcommittee, I recently introduced legislation that passed this House, creating a Congressional award for private sector entities that partner with schools to improve science, technology, engineering, and math education. The bill, H.R. 4030, would provide well-deserved recognition for outstanding private sector efforts and directs the National Science Foundation to disseminate information about award winners to educators, businesses and the general public.

The way to maintain and increase our standard of living is through innovation, technological advancement and hard work. We need to do a better job of encouraging student interest and achievement in math and science so that today's students will be successful in the highly competitive global economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate some of my memories of World War II. I was born in 1934. I was about 7, 8, 9 and 10. In our community what allowed Rosie the Riveter to go into the workforce and our factories was other women on the homefront, that substituted for taking care of children. So some of the women in our community went and babysat for other women to allow them to go into our factories to do some of this work.

So I am pleased that one of the resolved clauses reads, ``honors the extraordinary contributions of the women whose dedicated service on the homefront during World War II was instrumental in achieving the Allied victory.'' Those women that made the effort, that got in the physical conditioning to allow them, really unheard of before, to do man's work was also supplemented by so many mothers and so many other women in every home in most every community of the Nation.

In our rural area of Michigan, women were the ones that were encouraging the savings of string and tinfoil and saving all of their bacon fat and encouraging their children to contribute to the war effort. So it was not only

the work in the factories, but it was the inspiration that mothers and other women gave to their communities. So it was more than the factories. It was women going in to become members of the school board, to help guide the community and to substitute in public service organizations, where women came forward to really start a new era in America of women proving themselves to be so effective in achieving goals.

So I commend the resolution, I commend the effort of these women, especially as we have just finished the dedication of the memorial of World War II. Because that memorial is a dedication not only to those that died but to all of our fighting men and their families. The women during World War II were what kept the spirit up in a very strenuous time for many families in many communities as we saw relatives and loved ones die in service.

So I would just like to expand the commendation of women during World War II to the knitting of scarves and the collecting of cookies and all of the work that went on, in addition to those women that allowed us the production of planes and ships and guns and ammunition.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years, we have been able to cut taxes; but we have not been able to simplify those taxes. Maybe this is a step in the right direction. And I am the prime sponsor of the flat tax because there is so much favoritism that is now incorporated by special interests, lobbyists and groups putting into our Tax Code, that every favor becomes a disservice to everybody else that has to make up those taxes.

Today the Federal Tax Code has 400 percent more words than the Bible and accompanying the law are a staggering 2.5 million pages of regulations. As a result, it now takes a person filing a 1040 form a full 13 hours and 27 minutes to do their taxes.

H.R. 4109 helps seniors reduce this burden by requiring the IRS, and not leaving it to their discretion, where some administrations might say, let us go ahead and have a 1040S and some administrations say, well, we do not need the 1040S. But this would require the IRS to have a more simplified version of the tax form for seniors.

Under present IRS rules, more than 35 million individuals age 65 or older are not permitted to use the 1040EZ; and the ratio of seniors to all individual income tax filers is growing. According to an IRS study, the return filing population aged 65 and over will grow from 10.7 million in 2000 to 12.5 million in 2010. In light of this trend, the IRS has been considering, like the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) suggests, a simplified tax form for seniors. This legislation will assure IRS follows through on its promise to make such a form available. In particular, the bill requires the IRS to offer to individuals age 65 and over a form 1040S that is as similar as practicable to the 1040EZ.

The IRS is instructed to make the form available notwithstanding the receipt of Social Security benefits, distributions from a qualified retirement plan, annuities or other deferred payment arrangements, interests or dividend or capital gains or losses.

Finally, the IRS is instructed not to establish an income threshold for use of the form so that seniors with incomes in excess of the $50,000, the current threshold for form 1040EZ, will be permitted to use the simplified form.

The IRS estimates that as many as 11 million seniors will use the new form in the first year it is made available.

As one of the few members of Congress who does his own taxes, I am well aware of the mind-numbing complexity of figuring out the income tax. As the old saying goes, there's nothing certain but death and taxes. We can't do anything about death, but we can and should make taxes as fair and easy as possible.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincerest pleasure that I rise to recognize and compliment the congressional pages that will be ending their term of service this week.

The House pages have made up the critically important staff that has kept the House floor running smoothly for over 200 years. This 2003- 2004 school year pages were selected from hundreds of applicants following an incredibly competitive process that scrutinizes their individual achievements in academics, leadership, and complement to social and civic service.

Page duties include delivering all types of correspondence and legislative materials throughout the Capitol and House office buildings, answering phones in the Members cloak room, relaying messages, flying flags over the Capitol, and preparing the House floor for session and many other duties.

These pages have spent their entire junior year of high school in Washington, D.C. living, taking classes, and working for the House. The typical day of a page begins very early at 5:45 a.m. or 6 a.m. to eat breakfast prior to attending classes for school at 6:45 a.m. At 10 a.m. their legislative work day begins and lasts until the House adjourns in the evening and sometimes into the wee early morning hours. These individuals, I think, Mr. Speaker, have demonstrated their true commitment to playing an important role in our Nation's future by learning and working here in the Nation's Capitol.

We honor those pages that have shown the same generosity of spirit and depth of intelligence and capacity for human service that is so important of our leaders. These exceptional students have consistently displayed their dedication, intelligence, and concern throughout their time as a page in Congress. They stand out among their peers not only because of their many achievements but also the disciplined manner in which they meet all challenges.

I compliment the administration and those that have guided these pages. And although these pages have already accomplished a great deal, these young people possess unlimited potential. The House pages are young men and women of character, ambition and initiative who have made a significant contribution to the United States House of Representatives and have learned well the value of hard work and commitment. Their efforts and dedication are very much appreciated and our very best wishes bestowed upon them in all of their future endeavors that I am sure for some will include elected office, including Congress. I suspect all will be leaders in their community.

On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, we extend our thanks and our highest praise and congratulations to each congressional page.

Mr. Speaker, 54 minutes probably is very adequate. I was sitting up in my office listening, reading letters from constituents, letters that wanted more money for the AIDS program, letters that wanted more money over the approximately $29 billion that is going to our foreign support programs. They wanted more money for food stamps, letters coming in wanting more money for health care, wanting more money for

NIH. I think it should be obvious, certainly it is with most of our Members, that there are many, many problems out there; and the question is how many of those problems should it be the responsibility of government to solve.

We are now faced with a situation in the United States where approximately 50 percent of the adult population only pay about 1 percent of the income tax. So as we have moved in the last 30 to 40 years from an environment that our forefathers set up in the Constitution that encouraged effort, it encouraged savings, it encouraged individuals that saved and worked hard and invested, because they would be better off than those that did not; then, over the last 35 to 40 years, we have been sort of dividing the wealth up by increasing the taxes on those that might make it or those that work harder, or those that save and invest, and distributing some of their tax money to the individuals that made less effort or were, in other words, sometimes unlucky. I think that is a danger for our future.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 195th year of Abraham Lincoln's birth; and in his famous Gettysburg Address, he sort of surmised and wondered if a nation of the people, by the people and for the people could long endure. And I think in this kind of an environment where we have both sides of the aisle now calling for more spending; and it is an advantage to get reelected, Mr. Speaker, those individuals that take home more pork barrel projects, that promise more spending to solve more of these problems, probably do get on the television a little more, maybe get a picture of cutting their pork barrel project ribbon that they have taken home to their community. But the imposition on taxpayers today and maybe more importantly the burden that we are placing on taxpayers tomorrow, our kids and our grandkids, should be considered in the decisions we are making today.

I wanted to start out, Mr. Speaker, with sort of a pie chart on how we spend our Federal dollars this year.

As you see, the biggest piece of pie in this chart is Social Security. Some people suggest, well, why is Social Security part of that Federal spending pie? It is really a separate account. It is a separate account. However, I think it should be noted that on two occasions the Supreme Court has said just because you pay Social Security taxes there is no entitlement to the program benefits when you retire.

Social Security is simply another tax that Congress and the President have imposed on people, and the benefits are a separate bill of benefits that can be changed any time Congress and the White House wants to change those benefits. Of course, that is what we have done over the years. Every time we need a little more money for Social Security in this, if you will, pay-as-you-go program, the taxes have been increased or benefits have been cut or a combination.

So as we go around the pie chart we have Social Security taking in 21 percent of the total Federal spending. Coming around at 7:30, 8:00, Medicare is at 12 percent. The prediction is that Medicare costs will overtake Social Security within the next 18 to 20 years.

Other entitlement programs, 10 percent; domestic discretionary 16 percent. That is outside of defense. Domestic discretionary is what this body and the Senate discuss and argue about for 6 or 7 months out of the year. The rest of it is almost on fixed type of spending.

As you see, the next item is defense spending at 20 percent. That has gone up a little over a percent because of the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Interest. I want to dwell a moment in interest at 14 percent. The interest on our debt in this country, now a little over $7.3 trillion, is $300 billion a year. That is $300 billion at a time when we are looking at a future of deficits that is adding to that debt approximately $500 billion plus a year.

We are looking at relatively low interest rates today compared to the prospect of going back to much higher interest rates. So if we continue this overspending and if interest rates are going to go back up higher, which Mr. Greenspan predicted, which most of the economists are now predicting, we could well see interest on the debt within the next 20 years taking up 25 to 30 percent of the total Federal budget.

And I would just suggest, Mr. Speaker, this is, maybe a stronger word than unfair, would be unconscionable for Congress, the House and the Senate and the White House to think our problems today are so great that it justifies taking the money of our kids and our grandkids that they have not even earned that yet. They are going to have their own challenges, their own problems, and they are going to be unable to continue to increase the debt of this country to pass on to their kids and their grandkids.

I am a farmer from Michigan. Traditionally, on the farm what we try to do is pay down the mortgage so that our kids will have a little better chance of having an easier life than maybe their parents or grandparents did. In this body, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is just the opposite. We are increasing the debt every year.

Deficit, of course, is how much we are overspending over and above the revenues coming into the Federal Government. The overspending or deficit spending this year is going to be about $560 billion, next year about $530 billion, maybe a little higher. And what we are saying is we are adding that much to the debt.

In the next 2 months we are going to have to again pass a legislation in the House and the Senate signed by the President to increase the debt limit from its current $7.3 trillion on up to cover this kind of overspending and the debt that we are passing on to our kids.

I want to emphasize two things. We are passing on this liability to our children and our grandchildren in two ways: One is the deficit spending and the increased debt and the burdens of being responsible for that debt in future years, and the other is making promises that we do not have the money to pay for. That is the next chart.

The budgeteers call this unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities means passing a law for a benefit program and the funds that are going to be required over and above what is coming in to pay for those programs. The payroll tax for Social Security, Medicare, is going to be the unfunded liability, what we are going to need over and above the payroll tax coming in. $73.5 trillion is estimated by the actuaries. Medicare part A is $21.8 trillion. That is mostly the Medicare that goes to hospitals. Medicare part B is mostly what goes to the doctors. $23 trillion, Medicare part D, the new drug program that was passed last November, the unfunded liability on that program is $16.6 trillion.

And so Social Security is $12 trillion. That is more than a quarter million dollars of unfunded liability for every man, woman, and child in America; and what is happening, of course, is the demographics of individuals living longer and the birth rate declining means that there is going to be even greater burden for our kids and our grandkids.

The next chart shows if we do not do anything, if we keep just simply continuing to talk about that 16.6 percent of the spending that is discretionary spending and we do not deal with the kind of changes in the rest of the so-called entitlement programs, it is going to not only be a huge impact on the way of life and the potential success of our kids and our grandkids but it is going to be a huge imposition and strain on the economy of this country.

And let me just ask, Mr. Speaker, if anybody would like to venture a guess on what the payroll tax is in France, for example. The payroll tax to accommodate their senior programs in France is now over 50 percent of a payroll tax. Germany just when over 40 percent for their payroll tax to accommodate their senior population. If the United States continues to put off the solutions and dealing with these tough problems, then we are certainly going to see a situation where it is going to make us even more at a competitive disadvantage.

We are already increasing our taxes on our businesses approximately 18 percent over the taxes that are charged to our competitors. Our overzealous regulations, our high health care costs added to that put our business at a competitive disadvantage with many countries. But if we continue to slip

and slide and not deal with the problems of the unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, then the situation is even going to be worse.

And if we have that kind of a payroll tax, one understands that that business only has a couple options. They either try to pay less wages and salary to their employees in order to be competitive, or they try to increase the price of their product to cover their cost, and that tends to make them less competitive. So one can understand the demonstrations and frustrations in countries like France and Germany.

This chart shows that just in 16 years from now we will have to take an additional 28 percent out of the general fund to accommodate those other programs, what is needed over and above the money coming in from the payroll tax. By 2030, it is going to be over 52 percent that is going to come out of the general fund. We add to that the projection of the cost of the debt, servicing that debt, that is probably going to be approaching 20 percent at least in the next 15 years.

This chart is just a quick glimpse of the short-term surpluses from the huge tax increase on Social Security on the increase in the FICA tax that was passed by the Greenspan Commission in 1983. That increased tax money to cover temporarily the increase the cost of Social Security is going to last until about 2017, and then we have a huge, big red future. The red part of this graph projects the $12 trillion unfunded liability in Social Security.

I want to spend a minute, Mr. Speaker, talking about how Social Security works and the problem with Social Security. It is a tough problem; and it is easy to understand why Members of Congress have tended to say, well, look, we are going to save Social Security but we are not going to pass the bill right now, we are going to look at it more closely. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues in their past campaigns said, look, we need to do something about solving the problem with Social Security.

Here is how Social Security works. Benefits are highly progressive and based on earnings. At retirement, all of a worker's wages up to the tax ceiling are indexed to present value using wage inflation. What that means is if wage inflation means a doubling of wages every 9 years, it means a job 20 years ago that, or 18 years ago, that paid $10,000 now you would be paying maybe $30,000 for that job. So when Social Security indexes your best 35 years, it adds into those 35 years what the current value of that job was, whether it was held 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

The annual benefits for those retiring in 2004 is very progressive. And, very quickly, today 90 percent of the earnings up to $7,340, in other words, if you are a low-income earner and over those 35 years you averaged $7,500 in wages, the government would pay you 90 percent of your weekly or monthly take-home pay in your retirement years.

The next 32 percent of earnings between the $7,300 and the $44,000, is 32 percent of your earnings. And then as we deal with higher wage earners when they retire, everything above the $44,000 is only given 15 percent in terms of what you get back in Social Security benefits.

And I added this. Early retirees receive adjusted benefits, and SSI does not come out of the Social Security system. It comes out of the general fund.

Let us talk a little bit about how we are going to fix Social Security. One way is to get a better return on the investment, the money that is sent in by the employee and the employer. Right now, Social Security is not a good investment. The average retiree will receive 1.7 percent return above inflation on what they and their employer sent into the Social Security system.

Franklin Roosevelt, when he created the Social Security program over 6 decades ago, he wanted it to feature a private sector component to build retirement income. His suggestion that he sent to Congress is that there be personal accounts but that individual would be forced to put into that personally owned account and they would not take anything out until they reached age 65.

Looking through the archives in downtown Washington, I discovered that the Senate did pass that bill for personally owned accounts. The House passed a bill suggesting that it should be the government in control, taking all the money in and then paying out benefits when that individual reached 65. By the way, the program worked very well in those early years because the average age of death was 62. One could not collect benefits until you reached age 65. So most people paid in but never took out benefits.

It is a program that is stretched to its limits. And the reason is demographics. Seventy-eight million baby boomers are going to begin retiring in 3\1/2\ years from now. Social Security spending exceeds tax revenues in 2017, and Social Security is simply going broke, and it needs to be fixed.

It is not guessing on insolvency. I have heard suggestions from both sides of the aisle if we can get our economy strong enough, it will fix Social Security. Well, the fact is that we know how many people there are, we know when they are going to retire, we know that people will live longer in retirement. But here is what also we know: We know that if we are earning more wages now because of a stronger economy, or if more people are working now because of a stronger economy, because there is a direct relationship to how much you are earning and paying in now and how much you will get out when you retire, a stronger economy now means there is more money going into the system, but it means when these people retire there is more money going to be spent going out of the system.

So simply having a strong expanding economy by itself does not solve the Social Security problem.

My last blip on this chart, payroll taxes will not cover benefits starting in 2017 and the shortfalls will add up to $120 trillion between 2017 and 2075.

Here is the problem of the birth rate going down and the fact that people are living to older ages. In 1940 there were 28 people working paying in for every one retiree, so they were spreading the costs between those 28 workers on their payroll tax to finance every one senior. By the year 2000, it got down to three people working paying in and supporting one senior, so the taxes kept going up.

The projection for 2025 is there will be two individuals working for every one senior that they are trying to support in their retirement. Economic growth will not fix Social Security, Social Security benefits are indexed to wage growth; and 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, as we discussed, but leaves a larger hole to fill in in later years.

Mr. Speaker, I was chairman of the bipartisan Social Security Task Force, and I probably made maybe 250 speeches around the country. In those early speeches people said, well, if Congress would keep their hands off the money coming in from Social Security, if they would keep their hands off the Social Security trust fund, everything would be okay. Well, we should keep our hands off that trust fund. That money should be invested and returning real earnings back to the Social Security. But these two columns show the money that is in the trust fund, roughly $700 billion borrowed. You add interest to that, so now there are IOUs out there that represent $1.4 trillion. But here is the total column of what is required for the Social Security problem. That is $12 trillion. So we need to get back that $1.4 trillion, and it is all spent; so government has spent all the money when it came in.

So now the challenge is how do we, do we simply reduce benefits again so that we do not need as much money, do we raise taxes again on workers where already 78 percent of American workers are paying more in the payroll tax than they do the income tax?

On this chart, it probably justifies an explanation. We will need $120 trillion between 2017 and 2075 in future dollars. The $12 trillion that we talk about in unfunded liability or the total for Medicare and Medicaid added to that is $73.5 trillion. That means that money would have to be put in a savings account today accruing interest that would accommodate for inflation plus the time value of money to come up with the $120 trillion that is required

until the future years to cover Social Security benefits, that much more is needed over and above what is coming in on the payroll tax now.

Social Security has a total unfunded liability of $12 trillion. Social Security trust fund contains nothing but IOUs. To keep paying promised Social Security benefits, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly 50 percent or benefits will have to be put by 30 percent. And with this program, with most of our seniors depending on Social Security for most of their retirement income, I think it would be very bad policy to again cut benefits. But that is what we have done in the past. That is what we did with the 1983 changes. We increased the taxes up to 12.4 percent, and we cut benefits in several ways including increasing the retirement age gradually from 65 to 67 years old.

This figure shows that Social Security is a bad investment. In fact, if you are a black male, you have a negative return on the money you pay in to Social Security because on average a black male will die at something like 63\1/2\ years old, before they reach 65 years old. The average return for the average retiree is 1.7 percent. The column to the far right represents what the market has done, and this is the Wilshire 5000 that actually earned 11.86 percent over and above inflation for the 10 years ending January 31, 2004. This, of course, included almost 2\1/2\, almost 3 years of a down equity market on the stocks. This is another way of saying, Mr. Speaker, that Social Security is a bad investment.

This chart shows how many years a retiree is going to have to live after retirement to break even on the money he and his employer, or he or she if they are self-employed, sent into Social Security. In 1995, if you retired in 1995, you have to live 16 years after retirement. By 2005 you will have to live 23 years after you retire to break even on the money you send in to Social Security. So that should bring to mind, is there a better way to invest some of this money than simply sending it to the government and letting the government write out an IOU and spend any extra money that they have and only giving the retiree an average of 1.7 percent return?

This chart I wanted to show simply because I think it indicates the danger of doing nothing and continuing to put off this decision. I would, as a footnote, I would just urge that every citizen in this election year when you go to candidate forums, when you go to Presidential forums and speak to their representatives, ask them what bill they have signed on or introduced to solve the Social Security and Medicare problem of unfunded liability, the fact that these programs are going broke. Because I think the danger is putting it off and then we simply increase taxes again.

As you see, in 1940 we had the first tax increase. We went from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, 2 percent of 3,000. In 1960 we tripled it to 60 percent of a base of 4,800. In 1980 almost doubling it again to 10.16 percent of the first 26,000. By 2000 we raised it to 12.4 percent of the first 76,000. In 2004, 12 percent of the first 87,900. And that view of history of what Congress and the administration has done probably is a danger signal to what we might do again if we do not stand up and deal with this problem.

I know it is so easy to demagogue because this is my, I introduced my first Social Security bill when I came here in 1993. And I have introduced a Social Security bill every year after that that has been scored to keep Social Security solvent. So every election, I face the challengers that are saying I want to ruin Social Security.

Now, probably after so many speeches in my 7th Congressional District of Michigan, most of my constituents understand the real problem of Social Security. So if those candidates that are replacing me, they are all very supportive that the system needs to be changed to keep it solvent and to keep this important program going and to keep our promises. Because what seniors, of course, what working people do is they look at how much revenue is going to come in from Social Security and what other kinds of savings they need to accommodate a retirement life-style that is going to be satisfactory. So simply telling these workers in their late forties and fifties that we are going to start reducing benefits would be terribly unfair.

This simply is a chart showing that 78 percent of workers today pay more in the Social Security tax than they do in the income tax.

The six principles that I have set up, one, protect current and future beneficiaries; two, allow freedom of choice; three, preserve the safety net. In other words, in my bills I leave at least half of the trust funds in place. Four, make Americans better off, not worse off. So have a program where savings and investment in our industry is encouraged. Five, create a fully funded system. And my last blip that I think is important is no tax increases on your payroll taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to briefly run through the bill that I have just recently introduced. The Social Security trust fund continues, voluntary accounts would start at 2.5 percent of a personally owned retirement account and would reach 8 percent in future years, 2075. Investments would be safe, widely diversified, and investment providers would be subject to government oversight. The government on the last blip, the government would supplement the accounts of workers earning less than $35,000 a year. And what that does is ensure that with the magic of compound interest, adding a little bit to these low-wage workers into their privately held savings account, means that their trust funds are going to grow to a modest income workers can retire with what millionaires are getting from Social Security today. So the goal is to encourage savings and to have a system that does even better than our current Social Security system.

Actually, I think this was first suggested by President Clinton that we add some funds to low-income workers in their personal savings account to help encourage more savings and to give them the kind of retirement benefits with that larger nest egg and how it can accumulate.

My Social Security bill, as all my Social Security bills, has been scored by the Social Security Administration to restore long-term solvency to Social Security. No increase in the retirement age and no changes in the COLA, the cost of living, or no changes in the benefits for seniors or near-term seniors. Solvency is achieved through higher returns from worker accounts and slowing down the benefits for high- income retirees. I do that by adding another ben point.

You remember the ben point chart that went from 90 percent to 32 percent to 15 percent. I add another so-called ben point at 5 percent so that high-income retirees would have the effect of having their benefits, their increase in benefits slowed down. Workers' accounts, all workers' accounts would be owned by the worker and invested through pools supervised by the government. Regulations would be instituted to prevent people from taking undue risks. In other words, we start out like the Thrift Savings Account for Federal employees, and that is a limit on where you can invest the money, such as index stocks, index bonds, index cap funds and other safe investments as determined by the Secretary of Treasury. Regulations would be substituted to prevent people from taking those undue risks through that process, and workers have a choice of those three safe index funds with more options after they have a balance in their account of $2,500 or more.

What we also include in the bill is once you are able to have a permanent annuity that will guarantee you the same benefits as Social Security, then you can stop paying the 6.2 percent of your wages, of your income that you now pay into Social Security. So it gives you that kind of option if you think you can make the kind of investments and have the ability to set up that kind of insurance system just to guarantee that you are not going to later ask people to help finance your retirement if things go wrong.

Worker accounts. Accounts are voluntary and participants would receive benefits directly from the government, along with their accounts. Government benefits would be offset based on the money deposited into their account, not on the money earned, and workers could expect to earn more from their accounts than from the traditional Social Security. I think it is obvious that we could incorporate in this legislation

a guarantee that if anybody selected the option, you can stay with the old system if you want to and not have personal retirement accounts, in my proposed legislation, but if you do go into personally-owned retirement accounts, we are guaranteeing that they are going to be at least as good in terms of what they are going to contribute towards your retirement as Social Security. So you cannot lose.

Fairness for women. This is what I have incorporated in this Social Security bill. For married couples, account contributions would be pooled and then divided equally between husband and wife. So, if one spouse is earning much more than the other spouse, you add the two earnings together, you divide by two to determine what is going to be the identical amount that is going to go into both the husband's and the wife's personal retirement savings account.

Two, it would increase surviving spouse benefits to 110 percent of the higher earning spouse's benefit. Currently, it is 100 percent. This tries to encourage people to stay in their own home a little longer rather than going to a nursing home. So we have upped the minimum amount that is going to be allowed after one spouse's death.

Then stay-at-home moms. For stay-at-home mothers with kids under 5, they would receive retirement credit. So, for those limited number of years that they stay at home with those kids under 5 years old, we give them the average of their higher earnings for those outyears to fill in that best 35 years in determining their benefits.

The additional retirement security. Trying to encourage a couple of things, encourage more savings, encourage people to stay in their own homes a little longer after they retire. So these are other provisions I have incorporated in my bill that is a bipartisan bill, signed by Democrats and Republicans.

The increased contribution limits for IRAs, 401(k)s and pension plans, we would increase that contribution limit. The second blip, a 33 percent tax credit for the purchase of long-term care insurance up to $1,000 per individual, $2,000 per couple. Low-income seniors would be eligible for a $1,000 tax credit for expenses related to living in their own homes and households caring for those dependents. So, if the kids are having one of their parents or both of their parents live with them, they would get a tax credit to encourage them to use their facility and care for their parents as opposed to maybe their parents going into a nursing home.

Nursing home care, of course, is now increasing dramatically as we pass more rules and regulations. On the average, in my area of Michigan, nursing homes cost from $40- to $55,000 a year for a senior to stay at that nursing home, and with the increased medical technology, these elderly individuals that thought they had saved enough during their working years soon find out that if they are going to live that longer period of time, then their savings is used up, and they switch and then they are eligible for Medicaid, where the government pays the cost of that nursing home care.

The promises that Congress has made. As I summarize Mr. Speaker, I would just encourage all citizens of this country to look at the overpromising and the overspending that seems popular for the moment, but in the long run, it becomes a detriment not only to our kids and our grandkids but to the kind of pressures it is going to put on economic growth in future years.

Mr. Speaker, 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 Kelli McCarrell, winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is given to young adults who have demonstrated their true commitment to playing an important role in our Nation's future.

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

Kelli is an exceptional student at Western High School. Aside from being at the top of her class academically, she possesses an outstanding record of achievement in high school. She has participated in Varsity Golf and Cheerleading for four years as well as the school band. Notable among her many activities is her service as President of the Spanish Club, Treasurer of the National Honor Society, and Captain of the Math Academic Team. Kelli is also very active with her church.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to join her many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations to Kelli McCarrell for her selection as winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor not only recognizes her efforts, but is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and other individuals whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, we extend our most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, 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 Bobby Jo Ludwick, winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is given to young adults who have demonstrated their true commitment to playing an important role in our Nation's future.

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

Bobby Jo is an exceptional student at Bronson High School. Aside from being at the top of her class academically, Bobby Jo possesses an outstanding record of achievement in high school. She is very active in the National Honor Society, F.F.A., 4-H, and student government. She has also devoted a great deal of her time to volunteering with a variety of different civic organizations.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to join her many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations to Bobby Jo Ludwick for her selection as winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor not only recognizes her efforts, but is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and other individuals whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, we extend our most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence that he has compiled in academics, leadership, and community service, that I am proud to salute Shea Scott Dow, winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is given to young adults who have demonstrated their true commitment to

playing an important role in our Nation's future.

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

Shea is an exceptional student at Jonesville High School. Aside from being at the top of his class academically, Shea has an outstanding record of achievements in high school. Shea is very active in the National Honor Society, F.F.A., 4-H, student government, and band. He has also devoted a great deal of his time to volunteer with a variety of different civic organizations and is a very active member of his church.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to join his many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations to Shea Scott Dow for his selection as winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor not only recognizes his efforts, but is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and other individuals whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to his success. To this remarkable young man, we extend our most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, 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 Heather Lucey, winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is given to young adults who have demonstrated their true commitment to playing an important role in our Nation's future.

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

Heather is an exceptional student at Blissfield High School. Aside from being at the top of her class academically, Heather possesses an outstanding record of achievement in high school. She is a member of the National Honor Society and a peer mentor at school. Heather is also very active with her church.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to join her many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations to Heather Lucey for her selection as winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor not only recognizes her efforts, but is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and other individuals whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, we extend our most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence he has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I salute Tyler William Losinski, winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is given to young adults who have demonstrated their true commitment to playing an important role in our Nation's future.

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

Tyler is an exceptional student at Bronson High School. Aside from his academic excellence, Tyler possesses an outstanding record

of achievement in high school. He has participated in F.F.A./4-H for four years and has served as both Secretary and Vice President. Notable among his many activities are his four years on both the Varsity Football and Baseball teams. Tyler also hopes to one day become a teacher.

On behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to join his many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations to Tyler William Losinski for his selection as winner of the 2004 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor not only recognizes his efforts, but is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and other individuals whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to his success. To this remarkable young man, we extend our most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.