Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, well, the President was on the road again today with yet another tightly controlled scripted, so-called town hall, before a carefully screened, invitation audience to tout to his plan to privatize Social Security.

Now, that is not unusual; in fact, the scripted town halls are all so similar that they can save the taxpayers a lot of money if he just stayed at Camp David or Crawford, Texas, and they just replayed the recordings of his earlier scripted, rehearsed town halls.

But the President did say today something extraordinary, in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and suggested something unconscionable. The President said, ``There is no trust fund.'' And then he went on to suggest that our Nation might not honor its debt to Social Security. This is what the President said does not exist.

Let me read from this. This is a Social Security Trust Fund bond, considered the best investments in the world, U.S. Treasury Bond. This is the most privileged of Treasury bonds issued to Social Security, redeemable at any time at full face value, unlike any other bond that they issue. These are the most privileged of their bonds. The President says it is nothing but an IOU. Well, here is what it says: This bond is incontestable in the hands of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. The bond is supported by the full faith and credit of the United States. And the United States is pledged to the payment of the bond with respect to both principal and interest.

The President questions that? He is questioning whether we are going to repay our most privileged debt to Social Security. We have $7.9 trillion of debt. He is adding to it at a record rate, borrowing $1.3 million a minute. Who is he saying we are going to repay and not repay?

Are we going to repay the Chinese but not the Social Security Trust Fund? Are we going to repay President Bush, he happens to have some U.S. Treasury Bonds in his personal portfolio, but not the Social Security Trust Fund? Are we going to repay other wealthy investors around the world and in the U.S., but not the Social Security Trust Fund? We are going to selectively default on our debt.

Suggesting something like that, if the bond markets believed the President, the dollar would drop to near zero tomorrow, and there would be an economic catastrophe, but they do not believe him. They know this is just politics and rhetoric on his part. There is no intention of the Government of the United States defaulting on its debt.

This year Social Security will collect $170 billion more than it needs to pay Social Security benefits, and they are invested in the trust fund. If what the President said is true, there is no trust fund, and we are not going to honor it, then Congress and the President are perpetrating a fraud of extraordinary magnitude on the working people of America, extorting through taxes $170 billion more than they need to pay current benefits that this President has no intention of repaying. That is unbelievable.

Every minute, every minute, this President and this Congress are borrowing $320,000 of Social Security taxes and spending it on something else. And the President says he is replacing it with worthless IOUs; they are not bonds, they are not investments. He questions whether they will be repaid. He questions the full faith and credit of the Government of the United States of America and its willingness, our willingness, to meet our obligations and our debt.

If what the President says is true, then we ought to give the working people of America, instead of the rich people of America, the biggest tax cut in history. Reduce the Social Security tax, which falls more heavily on working people. More working Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do income taxes to the Federal Government.

If he has no intention of repaying that $170 billion that he is borrowing this year of excess Social Security taxes, then we should not collect it under false pretenses. We should give people a big tax break. That would stimulate small business, employment, and put a lot of money in the pockets of working people. I am not advocating that.

But if he does not repay it, he should be advocating it, and instead of trying to switch the game and having an irrelevant debate over a so- called privatization plan which actually makes the funding problems of Social Security worse and would require another few trillion dollars of borrowing, in which I guess people would get these worthless bonds that the President questions.

Now, who is going to buy those worthless bonds? How is he going to continue to run the Government of the United States borrowing $1.3 million a minute if the bonds of this country are worthless?

This is an extraordinary and reckless statement for the elected President of the United States to make.

Madam Speaker, the United States set a new record officially, and that is something, unfortunately, which will haunt us for decades to come, a new record trade deficit of $665.9 billion. We have two growing categories of exports as the leading industrialized nation in the world, and one is waste. We are exporting more waste paper, bottles, cans and things to the world's fastest growing industrial giant, China, which they turn into high value added goods and ship back to us.

Our second greatest export, or actually the greatest export is U.S. dollars. We are borrowing $665.9 billion from overseas producers to bring goods into this country without adding to the economic industrial base, in fact to the detriment of the economic industrial base of the United States.

Japan today holds $820 billion, China $610 billion. China will soon eclipse Japan. Within 3 years, China will have a trillion dollars of IOUs from the United States Government. They will have not only a stranglehold over the production of goods, because we are buying so many things from them and so many U.S. companies have put capital into China instead of jobs here, but they will have a stranglehold over the dollar.

Let us image a confrontation over Taiwan, and the Chinese say we are not going to take you on militarily yet, it is 10 or 15 years until we have eclipsed you militarily, although we have eclipsed you industrially, but we are going to dump dollars tomorrow. We are going to take the dollar down to the value of a rupee or even less. They could threaten to dump that trillion dollars onto the world market, cause an economic catastrophe here at home and around the world. They would not have to fire a single shot.

This administration thinks it is just peachy. They say the U.S. is growing so fast, that is why we have these huge trade deficits. Yes, we are growing so fast on borrowed money and purchasing products made overseas. That is not exactly my idea of adding to the economic industrial base might of the United States of America and putting our own people into productive work. Members wonder why wages are dropping in the U.S. and people are not doing so well, because the good jobs, the manufacturing jobs, the high-paying jobs, the jobs with benefits, are going to China and other unfair trading nations.

And this administration, and to give them some due, the last administration was afraid to take on China on their unfair trade practices. They can steal products, like they have from companies in my own district, clone them in China, including translating the U.S. patents into Chinese, and this administration and the last will not lift a finger to stop that. This administration said bring them to the WTO, rules-based trade, and then we will go after them. They have only filed one complaint against China. The billions that they are pirating from our companies, one complaint and who was it for, Pfizer, the big drug company, the only company that this administration would file a complaint at the WTO on behalf of, not the electronics company in my district, not the wood products company in my district, not other companies all across America who are being pirated by the Chinese, just Pfizer who could probably take care of themselves, but these other little guys cannot.

We have a failed trade policy in this country. We cannot continue to borrow here at home, $1.3 million a minute with our current account deficit to run the government, and borrowing $2 billion a day from overseas from countries that are potential future enemies, or at least competitors, like China. It is crazy. It is not sustainable.

Even the great guru, Alan Greenspan, the head political economic hack in this town, has said it is not sustainable. When will this administration wake up?

Mr. Chairman, I believe this would become the lawyers' full employment act, and the other side of the aisle is not usually avidly supporting the lawyers, because this is so vague, a description of the weight of scientific evidence. How would we weigh it? Do we weigh it physically? Do we weigh it on a molecular basis? What is the weight?

I expect that this would lead to lengthy and contentious litigation at great expense to the taxpayers and basically inhibit government agencies from using the best available science. It is too vague. It should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time on behalf of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) as the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and I believe strongly in the importance of regional transit authorities and will work with the gentlemen from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) and (Mr. Spratt) to find an agreeable solution to this issue in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Again, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, chairman of the subcommittee, ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the staff members, the leadership in the House, everyone who has contributed to what I think is an extraordinary product in this bill.

This bill is going to make vital investment in the crumbling infrastructure of the country to refurbish it, maintain it, improve it. It is going to anticipate growth needs and congestion. It is going to contribute to the growth of our economy. It is going to put tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people to work, and we do all this without borrowing any money, creating anymore deficit or debt. That is the most extraordinary thing about this bill and the most notable achievement.

We, unlike many other Federal programs, have an investment that is totally paid for by the taxpayers and will be of tremendous benefit to those same taxpayers. The money will be spent in the manner in which it was intended when it was collected from individuals and from commercial drivers at the pump, and this will be, I believe, the signature domestic legislation of this Congress in terms of the positive impact on the economy of our country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.

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

The chairman has done a good job of talking about the people who do the real work around here, which is the staff, with good direction from the Members, and the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee chairman and the direction that I and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have attempted to provide in this endeavor.

This, I believe, may be the signature accomplishment of this Congress, as it goes to positive accomplishments for the economy of the United States and domestic programs.

The investment in this bill, investment of taxes, paid by the American people at the pump, we are not creating new deficit or debt here; we are spending their tax money in the way it was intended when it was collected from them when they tanked up their car or their commercial vehicle.

For every billion dollars in this bill of investment, of mitigating congestion, of repairing cracked bridges, of resurfacing highways, for transit, for every billion we spend, the President's Department of Transportation estimates that it creates about 47,000 jobs, not just direct good-wage construction jobs, but jobs that spill over to the contractors, the small businesses that subcontract, the communities where the projects take place with the spending in those communities, with improvement in the movement of freight so trucks do not have to take lengthy detours, so the just-in-time delivery can work better for American businesses, putting people to work in companies that are more competitive. All of that flows from this $284 billion investment.

In an ideal world, I would invest more and I believe that the chairman has a similar position on that, but we are constrained by current budget reality, and this is a good step to be taken by the House of Representatives; and hopefully, this will move the process out of limbo in the Senate. In the last Congress, we could have gotten this job done had the Senate followed the lead of the House. They did not. Hopefully, this time they will be more amenable to getting this bill done and getting it done long before the temporary extension expires at the end of May.

Our departments of transportation across the country need certainty. Many of them are restricted legislatively or constitutionally from obligating funds into larger projects or projects that will go more than 1 year because we are in this series of temporary extensions of the Transportation Efficiency Act as we move toward TEA-LU.

With the adoption of TEA-LU and the certainty that will come with that, we will see a whole lot of on-the-shelf, ready-to-go vital projects across America, that will put tens of thousands to work this next summer, move forward. But only if they get that certainty. It is estimated in the last year $2 billion of necessary spending, investment in roads, bridges, highways, transit projects was foregone because of this

uncertainty. I mean, everyone knows we are going to make these investments, but at what level and over what period of time and with what constraints on the spending. So the States themselves need this.

In my own State, we have a tremendous problem with cracked bridges on Interstate 5, and it is interfering with international commerce and interstate commerce, and we want to move ahead; but we need the certainty of this legislation, the investment in this legislation to do that.

I see that the ranking member of the full committee has come in.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time on this side since I believe we will probably hear from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the committee and a champion of all modes of transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have worked closely with my colleague from Florida and always enjoy working with him. I would be happy to go for a trillion dollars in this bill. And I think we could spend that money wisely and make the country more competitive. I can guarantee him, if we could get to a trillion dollars, we could get him back 99 cents or maybe even a dollar on a dollar.

So I am hopeful that as we move through the process we can increase the amount of money, which will allow us to accommodate States like Florida and others who need investments just like everyone else in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a member of the committee and a leader on transportation issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), an outstanding member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), my colleague, a member of the committee and a neighbor to the north.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the next-most senior member on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a new member of the committee who has already made his mark.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), a prominent member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), a friend and colleague and senior member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) who is the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking Democrat on the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

If this is to close the debate, the important message to the American people is that this is an investment that will pave their way, smooth their way to work and on their errands, in taking their kids to school, and make the kids safer going to school. It will put their friends, their neighbors and themselves to work. It will improve the efficiency of the United States economy. And these are all jobs and all investments that will be made 100 percent American, here at home in the United States of America.

I believe it resolves a lot of problems with our economy. It will put a lot of folks to work. Real jobs for real people on needed projects, investing their tax dollars in the way they were intended when they paid that tax at the pump.

As the ranking member pointed out, it could be more. If we keep full faith with the American people, we should invest that money now and not hold it back to create illusory deficit offsets. It cannot be spent on anything else but transportation infrastructure.

This is a good bill today. Hopefully, it will be a better bill tomorrow and when we come back, before the end of May with the conference from the Senate.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, but do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress at the same time as Amo Houghton. I think Congress is diminished by his departure. He was a gentleman. He was a rare spirit who was willing to stand up for what he thought was right even when he had to confront leaders on the other side, whether it was his own party or leaders on our side of the aisle. He spoke from his conscience and I think represented his district well.

I just had the pleasure and opportunity to be with him again last weekend with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) to do the reenactment of the March For Bloody Sunday over the Pettus Bridge; and as usual, Amo was there in heart and spirit, and it was wonderful to see him again. So I am wholeheartedly in support of this; and I think everyone will be in support of that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman would preempt States' rights which is, I do not believe, a position that Congress should be taking, but he said, don't worry, those States require some sort of minimum of insurance and people would be covered. If people would be covered, then why is the potential liability or the actual liability as according to the previous speaker so large to those companies? It must mean that the levels of insurance are pretty inadequate. If they had adequate insurance or if they were required to carry adequate insurance, then this might be a supportable position, but to defer to the States who might have inadequate insurance and then leave potential injured persons hanging out there and preempt the States, I think, is unconscionable for this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would just address a question to the gentleman. You say they are already covered. Well, if someone rents a car in a State that has 10/20 insurance, $10,000/$20,000, and they drive next door to a State that has $100,000/$300,000 and they have an accident, I guess you only get 10/20. So you

are saying it only affects these States. It would affect all States, if you remove this liability as they cross State lines.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield on the gentleman's own time to answer that question, if he would.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Chairman, again the gentleman did not answer my question. Rent a car in a 10/20 State, drive it into a 100/300 State, that car is essentially not insured for the purposes of that State.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I read from a story today in The Washington Post, page A8, ``Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina, who has spent weeks attempting to recruit Democratic support for a plan to restructure Social Security, said yesterday that Republicans `made a strategic mistake' by initially focusing on a proposal to create individual investment accounts,'' and, as he says, ``We've now got this huge fight over a sideshow. It's always been a sideshow, but we sold it as the main event.''

What he is talking about is that, as the President himself has admitted, the privatization of Social Security is and has nothing to do with fixing potential future financing problems in Social Security. It is a battle, in fact, if it was won under the President's terms, that would divert income from Social Security and, in fact, accelerate its financial problems from 40 years in the future to a mere 10 or 20 years in the future.

Senator Graham, Republican from South Carolina, has come to the conclusion that, as many of us have been saying on this side of the aisle, we should fix Social Security first, then engage in a debate over how best to encourage or assist Americans in having more private resources through IRAs, 401(k)s or other sorts of devices for their retirement.

The basic vision of the founders of Social Security still holds: President Roosevelt said that he wanted to have a program that was not a dole; that had its own source of funding that would be guaranteed, and it would be

earned. Earned. And that is what Social Security is, an earned guaranteed benefit that not only covers people in retirement as long as they might live, unlike many other plans and programs out there, like the privatized accounts, but it also provides for survivor benefits in case of untimely death to a spouse and/or surviving children. It also provides for a disability benefit.

The proponents of privatization, in addition to not fixing potential financing problems for Social Security, have not dealt with the issues of survivor benefits or disability benefits. They cannot. There is no way to do it under privatized accounts.

You opt into a private, so-called opt, because people would be coerced into these because otherwise they would see dramatically reduced benefits and they would try to bet money to win back under this plan, but they would, say, at age 18, you opt in and you do really well for 6 years. You are working as hard as you can. You put away the maximum amount per year. Then you become totally disabled at age 24, and you have $12,000, if you did really, really, really well in your investments in your privatized account. There it is, $12,000, you are totally disabled, have a good life.

That is not going to work. So they have not dealt with that issue. They say, oh, those people would still get their regular benefits. Well, if they are still going to get their regular benefits, but you are diverting all this money from the program, then the problems of Social Security become yet worse again.

So Senator Graham has finally hit on something, and hopefully other Republicans will come to the same realization. We have not just been saying, no, we do not want to improve the lot of people in their retirement years; and, no, we do not want to help facilitate people to save more toward their retirement. Because FDR envisioned the one guaranteed leg, the earned benefit of Social Security in addition to private pensions in a different savings. Private pensions are going away, so we need to help people save more, invest more and have more to supplement a guaranteed earned benefit of Social Security that is secure.

That is what this debate has been about. Finally, there is some realization on that side of the aisle that private accounts, in addition to taking the future financing of Social Security and putting it more in jeopardy, are a sideshow, as Senator Graham, Republican from South Carolina, has said, to the real issue of, are we going to take steps to guarantee that Social Security will be there not only for this generation and the near generation of retirees, as the President would do, but for all future generations.

We can do that easily. There are a number of ways to get there, one which I have proposed in past Congresses is to lift the cap on earnings. We say, look, if someone earns $25 million a year, they should pay the same percent of their income into Social Security as someone who earns $40,000 a year. If a person earns $40,000 a year, who works for wages and salary, pays 6.2 percent into Social Security; the person who earns $25,000 a year pays about a thousandth of one percent of their income into Social Security; they finish paying social security taxes on the second or third day of the year at that wage rate. That is not fair. It is not right. If they paid on all of their earnings, and their employer, some big multinational corporation paid on all their earnings, Social Security would be secure forever. In fact, we could lower the tax rate on everybody who earns less than $94,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, despite confusion in the press, does not have a plan to ensure the long-term financial solvency of Social Security. His privatization plan would actually reduce Social Security's income and accelerate

its financial problems. His privatization commission, which met a few years ago, did have some solutions to the financial solvency of Social Security. Generally, their preferred solution was to dramatically reduce future benefits, to change from wage indexing to price indexing, which means a young person who retires in 40 years would see generally a Social Security benefit reduced by 40 percent, far in excess of the predicted possible shortfalls that Social Security might have if we did nothing.

Now the President says he has not recommended that. He has not recommended dramatic reductions in benefits; it is just on the table. He has also said increasing the retirement age is on the table, and it is already programmed to go up to 67 by 2020. We are going to have people 70 years old logging in the Oregon forests and working other back-breaking jobs across America. But he says that is just on the table. He has not recommended that yet.

He did, in an encouraging manner, leave open the door a tiny bit to a fair solution, which would be lifting the cap on wages. Only people who earn less than $90,000 a year pay Social Security taxes on all their income. He left that door open.

In fact, I have introduced a plan in the last 30 Congresses which would fully ensure the future of Social Security by lifting the cap, reducing taxes for those who earn less than $94,000, and people who earn more than $94,000 pay more in taxes. But that door was promptly slammed by the Republican leaders in Congress. No, they are not going to do that. That would benefit working people too much.

So we are back to the point where the Republicans do not have a plan to ensure the financial security of Social Security. They do have a plan to make it worse, to carve out resources, to redirect income from Social Security into a privatization plan.

Some people get excited when they hear privatization. They think: It is my money; I can do what I want with it. No. Here are the details. They are detailed in this proposal, very detailed. Wage earners can divert 4 percent, two-thirds of their contribution. They can divert it into government-chosen conservative, as the President says, index funds that will be managed by a company chosen by the government. You could not touch your money, could not borrow against it, like people in 401(k)s, or withdraw it early. The government would control the money until retirement, and then the government would compute a bill, and the bill would be how much your taxes would have earned in the Social Security trust fund plus inflation plus management fees, and they give you that bill.

If investments did not do well, the wage earners might end up writing a check to the Federal Government when they retired. No privatization account for them. Other people who did pretty well will see they have to pay that money back to the government, and then the government will say your Social Security benefits are really low. This is the President's so-called privatization plan. The government would force, force people retiring to buy an annuity, to bring their Social Security benefit for their predicted lifetime up to the predicted poverty level. It would force people to do that. What a boon for the private insurance industry. Of course, these would not be guaranteed by anybody. You buy one of those plans. That insurance company goes broke. Sorry, you just lost everything.

So instead of an assured benefit under Social Security, taxpayers would be purchasing a very expensive annuity that does not have survivor's benefits, is not indexed for inflation, unlike Social Security, but then very few people maybe, according to a Wall Street Journal article a couple of weeks ago, none of the people in all probability, but maybe a few would do even better, and they could keep that extra money.

So we would undermine the guaranteed benefit indexed for cost of living with survivor's and disabilities benefits for all working Americans so maybe a few could do better, but the insurance companies could do a lot better. The brokers who manage the accounts could do a lot better, but other people would be left in the cold.

And what about survivor and disabilities benefits? They cannot talk about that, because it is impossible. You are 18 years old. You go into the so-called optional account. You save every penny you are allowed to invest. At 24, you are tragically hurt in an accident. You are not capable of working for the rest of your life, and you can withdraw your $8,000 in your Social Security private account and live on that. No, you cannot.

We need to deal with disability benefits, survivor's benefits and financial problems of Social Security, and the President has not done that with his so-called privatization plan.

Madam Speaker, the debate over the future of Social Security is complex and confusing. Even the President seems to be a bit confused. His staged town halls have focused on privatization, which actually makes the finances of Social Security worse.

On Saturday, the President talked falsely about the looming bankruptcy of Social Security. Worst case scenario, Social Security can only pay 75 to 80 percent of benefits starting in 40 to 50 years.

Until yesterday, he has been proposing cutting benefits even more to save the system. But finally yesterday, he opened the door to lifting the cap on the tax, on wages which people pay. Right now if you earn over $90,000 a year, you do not pay any more Social Security tax. If you earn $900,000 a year, you pay the Social Security tax at one-tenth the rate of someone who earns $40,000. That is not fair.

Lifting the cap would assure the solvency of Social Security for at least 75 years and potentially could give a tax break to everybody who earns less than

$9,000 a year under a plan I proposed in the last Congress.

Hopefully, the President will continue down the path of fixing Social Security first before we have a debate about other programs.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it comes as no surprise to my colleagues that I have a special appreciation for those that are unafraid to speak their mind, expose absurd policies for what they are, and bluntly and forcefully announce when the emperor has no clothes.

It is with mixed feelings, therefore, that I speak to my colleagues today on the upcoming retirement of Jerry Leone from the helm of the Public Power Council--the regional organization representing the interests of the customers of the Bonneville Power Administration.

Jerry is one of those rare individuals willing to provide unvarnished opinions. But she has more than the ability to distill complex issues into clear and unvarnished analysis and critique. Jerry provides clear insights, bold ideas and an uncanny ability to herd the often disparate interests within public power.

Jerry has been at the helm of PPC for more than a decade, guiding the region's public power systems through numerous challenges, including treatment of the region's aluminum plants, skyrocketing electricity rates, the West Coast energy crisis, formation of a Regional Transmission Organization, ESA listings and a review of the future of Bonneville. Public power, the region and the Northwest delegation are fortunate to have had the benefit of Jerry's insights and efforts throughout this effort.

Jerry is not merely a public power icon. She's a lawyer, a wannabe lineman, a retired member of the Coast Guard Reserves, an accordion player, and a journalistic wit.

I wish her the best in her retirement and thank her for her advocacy and tenacity expressed through numerous wry comments, witty insights and cogent observations.

Mr. Speaker, I had the first of a number of town hall meetings in my district last weekend on the issue of Social Security. I had an overflow crowd and had to turn people away, because people are confused and anxious and they want some facts. So I will try and explain a bit tonight what I explained to them there.

There are two issues. One is the ideological or public policy issue of privatization. The other is the financial and fiscal stability of Social Security. They are totally separate, as the President admitted last week during his round of staged town hall meetings around the country.

For the future stability of Social Security, here is what the concern is: conservative projections by the actuaries of Social Security say that 40 years from now, we might only have enough income coming into Social Security to pay 75 percent of promised benefits. The Congressional Budget Office says 50 years from today, 80 percent of promised benefits. So there is a problem that is out there. We should resolve that.

I have proposed in the past three Congresses legislation to do that; it is done simply, to say that all Americans who work for wages and salary should pay the same amount of tax on all of their earnings. Millionaires today pay a tiny fraction of their income to Social Security because after $90,000, no one pays. Someone who earns $30,000 a year pays 6 percent of their income. If you lift the cap, you create so much income for Social Security, that you could exempt the first $4,000 of earnings.

So under my proposal, everybody who earns less than $90,000 a year gets a tax break. The less you earn, the bigger the tax break. So that is one way of resolving that.

The President has a different proposal. He says we should cut benefits. He is not sure which way he would choose, but his commission chose a method that would reduce benefits 40 years from today by 40 percent. So the President takes a possible potential reduction in benefits 40 years in the future of 25 percent, and he guarantees a reduction in benefits today of 40 percent. That is a heck of a way to solve a potential possible future problem, by guaranteeing people they will get less.

Then he says he wants to create private accounts. Let me tell my colleagues what the President's proposal is for privatizing accounts. People would be able to divert some of their FICA tax into an account controlled by the government with a limited range of investments; the President said they would be very conservative and very limited, because he does not trust people to invest conservatively; controlled by the government, chosen by the government; and one would not be able to borrow against it, unlike Federal employees with their TSP. You could not withdraw it early, unlike Federal employees and other people with 401(K)s and pay a penalty and withdraw it. And at the end of your working life, the government would say to you, this is the President of the United States' plan: well, that money you diverted over there, we assume if Social Security had kept your money, it would have earned inflation plus 3 percent, so we are going to subtract that from what you earned with your investments. And if you did not earn more than inflation plus 3 percent, the government will actually reduce your already-reduced Social Security benefit; and if you manage to beat the market and beat that, they will let you have that money only after they force you into this so-called plan, let me have my money; the President's idea of privatization, the government controls it, the government lends it to you, the government borrows the money to lend it to you, and then if you beat the market, the government forces you to buy an annuity from an insurance company. That is the President's so- called privatization plan.

People say to me, I want to control my money, I can do better. I say, well, here is what the President is proposing. Nobody is proposing that you can opt out of Social Security and just invest on your own. People forget that this is one leg of a three-legged stool for retirement, a guaranteed insurance plan, Social Security, a defined benefit, something that is getting harder and harder to get, not adequate to live really comfortably on in retirement, but something that will be there for you when you retire; something that will be there for your spouse and/or children if you die before you retire; something that will be there for you if you are disabled.

I had people coming to my town halls and talk about their parents dying and getting the survivor's benefit; I had people come to my town halls and talk about becoming totally disabled and getting that lifeline from Social Security. Those things would not be available under a privatization plan. You would get what was in your account after the government took back the inflation plus 3 percent earnings against your private account. That would be all your heirs would get. Survivors would get what you would get on disability, plus a minuscule, doubly-reduced Social Security benefit.

This is not well thought out. We need to assure future generations Social Security will be there. We can do that by taxing all Americans the same for their Social Security benefit. That will more than assure the future of the fund. In fact, as I said earlier, my plan gives everybody who earns less than $94,000 a tax break. We do not need to have people gamble with the government controlling their investments and then take money back from them just before they retire.

Mr. Speaker, the President talks loosely and loudly of the pending crisis, the bankruptcy of Social Security. Under pessimistic assumptions, 40 or 50 years from today, Social Security might only be able to pay 75 percent, or more, of benefits. That could be described as a possible potential future problem but certainly not an immediate crisis and a long way from bankruptcy.

So what does the President propose? Privatization which would actually make Social Security shortfall certain, precipitate the crisis. He would mandate a 40 percent cut in benefits. Think of it. To solve the problem, a possible reduction in benefits by 25 percent, he mandates up front a 40 percent cut, then would borrow $2 trillion, put that on the back of the taxpayers and future workers so people could gamble possibly to try and make up that shortfall through privatized accounts and most probably would fail.

What a deal. Let us get real about it. Let us fix Social Security, not destroy it.

Mr. Speaker, as even the sponsors of today's challenge to the Ohio vote acknowledge, the protest is not intended to try to overturn the results of the 2004 election. President Bush won the state of Ohio and the popular vote.

However, like in 2000, the most recent election was marred by multiple irregularities, allegations of fraud, and technical challenges. Today's debate provides an important opportunity to discuss on the House floor our continuing concerns about the integrity of our electoral process, which has been called into question by the last two Presidential elections.

Others have mentioned many of the specific concerns about the process in Ohio. Many of these problems were seen in other states as well. In response to the widespread problems, I wrote to the Government Accountability Office in November requesting an investigation of these irregularities and a review of whether tougher federal voting standards are necessary to resolve them. While Congress did approve election reform legislation in response to the problems in 2000, more needs to be done to restore the integrity of the electoral process.

One of the most blatant shortcomings is the lack of a paper trail for many electronic voting machines. In 2003, I cosponsored legislation to rectify this problem. Regrettably, the Republican Congress refused to act on it. So we headed into this last election knowing that electronic votes could not be verified or recounted manually. Damaged machines and programming errors have actually expunged all records of votes in isolated instances. That is unacceptable. I will continue to pressure the Republican leadership to allow a vote on this issue.

In addition, I asked GAO to review the need for open-source computer code for these machines. The new technology must be accessible for review and audit. The voting public must be certain that the system cannot be manipulated, and that their vote is recorded properly and accurately regardless of what system they use.

And, I asked that the investigation review the need for uniform and simple standards for counting provisional ballots, registering voters, and identification requirements at polling places. I believe strong federal standards in these and possibly other areas are necessary for federal elections. The varied standards from state to state, and even within states, seriously endanger the integrity of our elections.

We need to insure the integrity of our electoral process is absolutely beyond question. Until we fix the problems mentioned today, we will never be able to say with confidence that every vote has been counted, and counted correctly and fairly. Election reform must be a top priority of the 109th Congress.

Mrs. DAVIS, of California. Mr. Speaker, the 2004 election is over, and the results are in. I am not here today to dispute which candidate won the election. I join my colleagues today in expressing concern, however, about the irregularities that have been documented from the election in Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, we can argue all day about what did or did not happen with the election in Ohio, the procedures that were or were not used there, or about the voting machines. The issue we are addressing today, however, is the fundamental right of every American to vote. I am not challenging the outcome of the past election today. What I am challenging is the fact there are people in America who have been denied the right to vote. And that, Mr. Speaker, is wrong.

People from around the world watched the State of Ohio with great interest on Election Day. Widespread reports of irregularities and waiting times in excess of 4 hours were extremely troubling to all of us.

I just returned from the Ukraine, where some of my colleagues and I had the privilege to observe the second election there. As we are all well aware, incidence of irregularities, voter intimidation and fraud during the first Ukrainian election were widespread and well documented. People from all over the world watched both of the Ukraine elections. And we have all been deeply moved by the success of democracy there. The triumph of the Ukrainian people's will has been profound.

Mr. Speaker, a success for the democratic process like the one we just witnessed in the Ukraine doesn't just happen on its own. It takes the courage and conviction of a country's citizens to rise up and challenge what they feel is wrong. If the people feel that irregularities or intimidation have taken place, they must stand up to it. They must shed light on it. They must insist it be prevented from ever happening again.

Much of the international community, including the United States, has contributed money, training and resources to help build democracy in countries like the Ukraine. Having the opportunity to go to the Ukraine, and to witness the process first hand, was an incredible experience for me and for my colleagues who were with me. To see the people in the streets, and to observe their profound sense of satisfaction with the election was very powerful. It was clear to all of us who were there that the Ukrainian people had come to believe that people truly are empowered to challenge injustices when they occur.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot escape the parallels we should draw between the issue we are addressing today and my experiences during the Ukrainian elections. In large numbers, the Ukrainian people took to their streets--not to support a particular candidate--but to support democratic principles and the right for each person's vote to be counted fairly and unencumbered. I am heartened that America has been able to offer assistance to countries like the Ukraine in establishing democracy. What we must realize, however, is that America may indeed have a few things to learn from their experience as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Brigadier General Harold King of the U.S. Air Force, Retired. His death on October 7, 2004, ended a remarkable and distinguished career of service to the Nation.

Benjamin Harold King was born in Oklahoma in 1919. He began his successful military career in February 1942 when he enlisted in the Army Air Force as a flying cadet. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in November and was flying with a fighter squadron in the Philippines a few months later. He served proudly and well during World War II, flying 122 combat missions in the Asiatic-Pacific and European- Middle Eastern theaters. He went on to log 226 combat missions in Korea and over 100 combat missions in Vietnam.

Brigadier General King's decorations include the Purple Heart, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three oak leaf clusters, the Air Medal with 24 oak leaf clusters, and the French Croix de Guerre.

Brigadier General King will be remembered, as well, for his legacy of leadership as a commander and operations officer. He succeeded at every assignment and is revered as the father of the modern USAF Air Commandos and Special Operations.

Brigadier General King flew combat in three wars and served in the military for over 30 years before retiring in 1971. He resided in Florence, Oregon, in my congressional district, at the time of his death.

A flight of four F-15s flew directly over his memorial service, a few hundred feet above the local airport where his family, friends, and community members watched the perfect ``Missing Man'' formation. It was a fitting tribute to Brigadier General Benjamin H. King, Flying Ace.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves today. We're debating a resolution to belatedly strike a provision from the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations act because there was a provision in the bill inserted with the knowledge of only a handful of individuals in this body that would have seriously undermined the privacy rights of all American taxpayers.

We find ourselves in this situation because of the mismanagement of the Congress and the federal budget process by the majority in the House. The Congress never passed a budget this year. That led to the total implosion of the annual appropriations process. Only two bills were approved by Congress and signed into law by the start of the 2005 fiscal year on October 1, 2004. Two additional bills were approved in mid-October.

The remaining nine bills totaling hundreds of billions of dollars and running more than 3,000 pages in length were cobbled together behind closed doors by just a few staff members with oversight by just a couple of Republican leaders in Congress. The text of this monstrosity was brought to the House floor only a few hours prior to the vote on Saturday, November 20th. That is clearly not enough time for any of us to read the bill, understand it, and ensure tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Despite this ridiculous process, I voted in favor of the bill because the alternative would have hurt the people I represent in Oregon. The alternative to the omnibus was to fund virtually the entire Federal Government on autopilot for the next year via a continuing resolution. This would have negated the increased funding in the omnibus for veterans at a time when thousands of troops are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening to overwhelm the VA health care system.

It also would have meant Oregon would lose millions of dollars I secured in the omnibus for critical infrastructure projects, including projects at the North Bend Airport; the Port of Brookings; transportation improvements like the Coburg/I-5 Interchange; and water infrastructure projects for Sweet Home, Coburg, and Coquille.

So, while I supported the omnibus because it is beneficial for Oregon, I would urge the House Republican leadership to never again bring a bill to the House floor under these circumstances. Never again should the federal budget process be allowed to implode as it did this year. Never again should the House leadership bring a bill to the floor that is drafted behind closed doors by only a few Members and staff. Never again should the House leadership bring a bill to the floor with no time for Members to actually read what they will be voting on.

Finally, while I am pleased we have the opportunity to belatedly remove the provision from the omnibus that undermines taxpayer privacy, I am disappointed that two other provisions I asked the House leadership to schedule separate votes on will be allowed to remain in the bill without any further consideration. These controversial provisions--one of which will expand the number of immigrants allowed into the United States under H-1B visas, the other which imposes a recreation tax on citizens using public lands--should be considered on their own merits rather than rolling them into a must-pass measure.

With respect to the immigration provision, under current law, businesses are limited to hiring no more than 65,000 workers annually through the H-1B visa program. A provision in the omnibus will allow multinational corporations to make an end run around this cap to hire up to 20,000 additional foreign workers for employment in the United States.

An expansion of H-1Bs is not necessary. There is no evidence of a shortage of qualified American workers. Even Bureau of Labor Statistics data compiled by the Bush administration show rising unemployment among American engineers and computer scientists. In fact, for the first time in more than 30 years, the unemployment rate for tech workers is higher than the overall jobless rate. This pool of American workers should be tapped first before even considering an expansion of the H-1B program.

Further, there is growing evidence that the importation of foreign workers is driving down the wages of American workers.

Given all of these obvious negatives, there are a significant number of members on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about expanding the H-1B program and feel strongly that this is an issue of protecting American jobs and American workers' standard of living.

I am also disappointed that the House leadership included in this omnibus a 10-year authorization for new and more expansive recreation fee taxes for use of public land. The original Recreation Fee Demonstration program was established by a rider to the 1996 Interior appropriations bill. Since its establishment, fee demonstration has been amended or extended numerous times, but has never gone through the proper authorizing process. Now, Congress is prepared to adopt a 10- year authorization through back channels, even though it has never been taken up by the full House, and is opposed by the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate. There is also strong opposition in the House from Members of both parties who serve on the committees of jurisdiction.

Fees for dispersed recreation on public lands amounts to nothing more than a stealth double tax for hikers, hunters, picnickers, or anyone wishing to spend a day at the beach or in the forest with their family. An omnibus appropriations bill is not the place to impose increased taxes on Americans.

Besides, the land management agencies have utterly failed to demonstrate that they deserve an expanded fee program. Within the Forest Service, for example, only 50 cents of every dollar collected actually goes toward maintaining or improving our public lands, the purpose for which Congress originally designated the fees. The rest is eaten up by administrative and collection costs. Losing 50 percent of funds to overhead signals that this is not an effective government program. In addition, the Forest Service doesn't know if these taxes are helping to relieve the maintenance backlog, or even to what extent it has a maintenance program.

This body should be ashamed of the process under which this legislation was drafted and brought to the floor. The American people deserve better from this Congress.