Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Angela Pitts, winner of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship, Angela is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. Angela Pitts is an exceptional student at Litchfield High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Angela has received numerous awards for her academic achievement and her success as a young athlete. She is active in student government, as well as the high school and jazz bands. Angela volunteers her time to various organizations, such as her community's youth group, and coaches young children in basketball. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Angela Pitts for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a sincere pleasure to recognize the finalists of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Scholarship Program. This special honor is an appropriate tribute to the academic accomplishment, demonstration of leadership and responsibility, and commitment to social involvement displayed by these remarkable young adults. We all have reason to celebrate their success, for it is in their promising and capable hands that our future rests: Nicole Albain of Deerfield, Michigan Laura Banks of Adrian, Michigan Zoe Bliss of Jackson, Michigan Jonathan Chapman of East Leroy, Michigan Bethany Decker of Adrian, Michigan Elizabeth Flack of Jackson, Michigan Benjamin Green of Morenci, Michigan RaeAnn Herman of Manitou, Michigan Alexander Kennedy of Adrian, Michigan Chelsey McConn of Bronson, Michigan Ingrid Meye of Pittsford, Michigan Martin Muntz of Manchester, Michigan Rebekah Preston of Quincy, Michigan Lisa Sellers of Battle Creek, Michigan Kristen Taddonio of Manchester, Michigan Bethany Wheeler of Morenci, Michigan The finalists of the LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship Program are being honored for showing that same generosity of spirit, depth of intelligence, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. They are young men and women of character, ambition, and initiative, who have already learned well the value of hard work, discipline, and commitment. These exceptional students have consistently displayed their dedication, intelligence, and concern throughout their high school experience. They are people who stand out among their peers due to their many achievements and the disciplined manner in which they meet challenges. While they have already accomplished a great deal, these young people possess unlimited potential, for they have learned the keys to success in any endeavor. I am proud to join with their many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations to the finalists of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship Program.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the body's attention an amendment I have prepared that concerns a matter of fairness and equity to American farm policy. Very simply, my amendment would maintain the number of farmers eligible for Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs) under language included in last year's Agricultural Risk Protection Act (Crop Insurance Reforms). The explanation for this need is as follows: for farmers to be eligible for LDP payments under the current farm bill, they must have had their land enrolled in farm program acreage back in 1986-91 crop years. This means that farmers that have decided to go into farming in the past ten years have not been eligible to receive loans or LDP's unless they have purchased farmland that was enrolled in the 1986-91 acreage. This would also include those farmers that did have acreage enrolled at the inception of the base acreage allotments, but later shifted acreage from another use into program crop production. For instance, if a corn/soybean farmer that also grazes some land enrolled in program acreage decides to shift that grazed acreage into corn/ soybean production, his new cropping acreage would not be eligible for the Loan Deficiency Payment. This problem was recognized last year and LDP eligibility was expanded to include farmers not enrolled in program acreage--language included in Crop Insurance legislation. However, this provision was only for crop year 2000, and another legislative remedy is needed for crop year 2001. My amendment, which I have also introduced as a stand-alone bill, H.R. 2089, would do just that. The idea of LDP eligibility equity has garnered strong bipartisan support within the Ag Committee, and was included in Chairman Combest's original mark for the 2001 Crop Year Economic Assistance Act that was voted on earlier this week (H.R. 2213), but was narrowly eliminated along with all other fiscal year 2002 spending that was included in the mark. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that approximately 98.6 percent of program crop production is eligible for LDP payments. While that number is significantly high and captures most commodity producers, it is still unfair for the other 1.4 percent to be ineligible simply because those farmers are not enrolled in farm program base acreage. It is important that we enact this provision and eliminate this loophole that places some farmers at a competitive disadvantage. I urge members to vote for passage of this amendment so that we may correct this problem.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in this amendment because earlier I had an indication from the Parliamentarian that this would be in order. We added some language that apparently is now going over the line in terms of legislating in an appropriation bill. But let me just emphasize the importance of policy as we consider this amendment. The question befor this body is should the huge, large agricultural farm corporations get the most benefit from Federal agricultural programs? This amendment reinstates the $75,000 limit for payments. Our agriculture programs, ever since we started these programs in the 1930s, have tended to benefit the large, and very large farmers, so in part the large farmers have bought out the small farmers because they have had the advantage in farm program payments. My amendment, reinstates the $75,000 payment limitation on loan deficiency payments and it makes it a real $75,000 limitation on these producers. At the same time, and I would call this to the attention of the ranking member and chairman, at the same time, this amendment allows spouses of these farmers to be considered an equal partner in the farm operation, in other words, be eligible for the $75,000 payment limitation. What we do now is make those spouses jump through, if you will, bureaucratic hoops to become qualified. We require such action as requiring the spouse to borrow money in their own name, put it into the farm operation, and then they can be eligible as a separate partner. This amendment says that married couples would have the $150,000 payment limitation. Let me go little further on what this amendment really does. Historically, net benefits from loan deficiency payments have been capped at $75,000 per producer, but this limit was doubled in the bill that went through on special orders a couple of weeks ago. The increased payments to producers over the current $75,000 limit are estimated to be over $350 million. The huge, giant farmers are taking $350 million over and above the $75,000 limitation. This benefits only the very largest farmers. The average farm size in the U.S. is about 420 acres, but one would have to raise 4,000 acres of corn at current prices to exceed or to go over the $75,000 limitation. There are many large farm operations that exceed 20,000 acres, so they are taking all of this extra money in and, in effect, taking it away from the family farmer. Amazingly, this flawed system has allowed payments over $1 million to go to some of these farmers. Farmers that receive these large subsidies, and the grain traders that profit from expanded production, oppose this amendment. I think it is so important that we consider this kind of policy in terms of focusing the benefits on the small- and moderate-sized family farm operations. This amendment accomplishes several things. It gives the spouse of a farmer the same kind of considerations as a partner. It provides that we hold to the $75,000 payment limitation, at a time when we are considering being frugal in our spending so that we do not start reaching into the Medicare and Social Security trust fund. It says, let us save that $350 million that is spent on those huge farmers by locking in the limit that would also apply to the nonrecourse loan and the forfeiture provisions or the commodity certificates that are offered to that farmer if they exceed the limitation. Mr. Chairman, I would urge this body to consider the kind of agricultural farm policy that we want for the future of American agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment concerning payment limitations for marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) to farmers, as well as limits on benefits received through the USDA commodity certificate program and nonrecourse loan forfeitures. This amendment would cap payments to individual farmers from these programs at $75,000. Mr. Chairman, few people are aware that many of our farm commodity programs, for all of their good intentions, are set up to disburse payments with little regard to farm size. Often in our rush to provide support for struggling farmers we overlook just where that support is going. The limit on price support payments to farmers was increased when we passed H.R. 2213, the 2001 Crop Year Economic Assistance Act on June 26th. Historically, net benefits from loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains has been capped at $75,000 per farmer. However, H.R. 2213, which passed under the suspension calendar and was not subject to amendment, doubled the benefit cap to $150,000. Even this limitation is exceeded when USDA authorizes a commodity certificate program to pay farmers that reach the payment limit. The increased costs to government by doubling the benefit cap from the current $75,000 limit is estimated at over $50 million. Furthermore, additional payments to large producers received through the commodity certificate program are staggering--over $320 million in crop year 2000 alone. A Congressional Research Service report on commodity certificates stated that, ``while purported to discourage commodity forfeitures, certificates effectively serve to circumvent the payment limitation.'' Amazingly, this flawed system allowed a single farmer to receive $1,201,677 in commodity support payments in 1999. My amendment would simply restore a $75,000 limit on price support payments to individual farmers--including benefits via commodity certificates and loan forfeitures, but increase the limit to $150,000 for husband and wife farming operations. Currently spouses have to jump through several bureaucratic hoops to qualify. With increased spending a concern, along with the fact that the additional benefits from the ``certificate'' program go to huge farm operations, I urge your consideration of my amendment. Boosting farm program payment limitations disproportionately skews federal agriculture support to the largest of producers, while doing nothing to alleviate the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized farmers. Let's do more to focus benefits on small and moderate size family farm operations. usda statistics Average acreage where $75,000 LDP payment is reached (crop year 2000): Corn, 1886 acres; soybeans, 2116 acres; wheat, 4,067 acres; cotton, 2,976 acres; and rice, 404 acres. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, hoping the Chair is open to discussion and debate on this issue, I would call to the Chairman's attention to the fact that we simply say in this amendment, ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to pay the salaries of personnel of the Department of Agriculture'' to accomplish these certain purposes. This type of amendment has been put in former appropriation bills, so I would like a more detailed explanation from the Chair if he rules this amendment out of order.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I presume that nobody is going to oppose this amendment, except maybe on a point of order. It is language that now exists over this past year for American farmers, and I simply want to bring to the body's attention that this amendment concerns a matter of fairness and equity to American farmers. Very simply, my amendment would maintain the number of farmers eligible for the price support program that we have in the Federal Government. We have a price support program that provides that if market prices fall below a certain level for these programs' crops, someone is eligible for an LDP, a loan deficiency payment, or a commodity nonrecourse loan. Under the provisions of the law, though, technically, only those individuals that were enrolled in farm programs and designated their program crop acreage back in the late 1980s are eligible for this kind of support. So what we did last year is allow every American farmer, those cattle and livestock farmers, those dairy farmers that did not have program crops and report them back in the 1980s, to be eligible for that same kind of federal price support as those individual crop farmers that had program crops. We are basing our farm programs on antiquated crop history that was established from 1986 to 1991. This amendment provides that those other farmers that today are growing that corn, that rice, that cotton, the soybeans, that corn, will still be eligible for the Federal Government price support program. It is a matter of fairness, and I say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the deputy chairman, that the Senate has indicated they are interested in putting this in the Senate version of their agricultural appropriation bill. It is important that we, as quickly as possible, tell the American farmers, that otherwise might not be eligible for this kind of support help, that we intend to pass this amendment. We had it in the chairman's mark of the appropriation bill supplemental. That bill was changed with the Stenholm substitute. This amendment needs to be accomplished. I would ask the leadership in their efforts, when we go to conference, if this is in the Senate bill, can we move ahead on this amendment?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from the gentleman from Ohio. This proposal is a thinly disguised attack on biotechnology. It would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from using finding to review and approve applications for salmon and fish improved from biotechnology. This amendment not only wastes money that already has been spent assessing the health and environmental safety of these biotech fish, it also would prevent FDA from meeting its obligations to review new foods under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Current law and regulations require applicants who wish to bring a new fish on the market to undergo a ``new animal drug'' review process by the Center for Veterinary Medicine. In meeting these requirements, an applicant must meet rigorous safety standards, which include strict requirements on animal welfare, the environment, and human health. This premarket review process ensures that the products of biotechnology are safe to grow and eat. It is interesting to note that while research to develop commercially-viable biotech fish is well underway, none has completed the FDA review process. This amendment would effectively end current research projects and would put future private and public research efforts to improve quality and lower cost at risk. Today, for example, disease is the biggest impediment to improved production of farm-raised catfish. This amendment would seriously undermine research that could improve these yields and reduce losses from disease. Quick-growing biotech salmon could reduce the pressure on wild fish stocks that are used for feed. Salmon farmers also use only sterile, all-female stock to prevent cross-breeding with wild populations. The gentlemen's amendment would throw out all of the research and capital that were used to develop these new varieties and that is needed to move toward more sustainable fish production and harvesting. FDA's policy on biotechnology has been in place for nearly ten years and has allowed the safe introduction of wholesome and safe food. Incidentally, FDA's policy applies to all foods, not just those produced using biotechnology. The gentleman's amendment implies that biotech foods are inherently different and more risky than foods produced using traditional techniques such as cross breeding. There is no scientific evidence to justify this assertion. Rather than incite unfounded, ideologically-driven fears of this technology, we should recognize the incredible potential of biotechnology. Biotechnology will help alleviate hunger in the developing world, promote more environmentally-friendly and sustainable farming practices, reduce pressures on arable land, and create new markets for farmers. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake: this is a measure aimed at stopping aquacultural biotechnology. FDA's current regulatory process should not be short circuited. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Under the Kyoto Protocol, by 2008 to 2012 the U.S. would be required to slash emissions of greenhouse gases to seven percent below the 1990 level--a level last achieved in 1979. Based on projections of the future growth in U.S. energy use, this would require a real cut in emissions of over 30 percent. In the meantime, major greenhouse-gas emitters, such as China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, would be able to continue business as usual. In July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was signed, the Senate passed on a vote of 95 to 0 the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which states that the U.S. should not sign any treaty that (1) would mandate cuts in emissions only for developed countries and (2) would result in serious economic harm. This commonsense resolution set the absolute minimum criteria for Senate ratification of any climate treaty. The Clinton Administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification because it knew that it would be dead on arrival. In a breath of fresh air, President Bush said succinctly, ``I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers.'' In stating the obvious and pulling the plug on this flawed treaty, the President has spared us from a U.N. boondoggle that would harm American workers, consumers, and businesses. The proponents of this amendment argue that, because the Administration does not support the Kyoto Protocol, the language in the bill is superfluous. Further, they argue that striking the language will send a positive message to the international community that the U.S. is willing to play a leadership role in climate change. We are a leader in the world on reducing and sequestering harmful emissions. Annually we spend nearly $2 billion on climate change research, more than the rest of the world combined. There are many things about the climate system we still do not understand. That is why we need to continue this research and increase our knowledge of climate variability and the potential human impact of greenhouse gas emissions. Current computer models predicting warming over the next century may prove to be no more reliable than the five-day weather forecast. But even assuming that these models are right, achieving the emission goals in the treaty would reduce projected warming by less than one-tenth of a degree by 2050. So we still have time to do the necessary research to fill in the gaps and get it right instead of lurching ahead with a treaty that would cost too much and do nothing to solve the problem it is intended to solve. The Administration also has said that it will be working to develop new technologies, market-based incentives, and other approaches to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions. I fully support these approaches, which make much more sense than the commend- and-control dictates that would flow from the Kyoto process.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I am not withdrawing the amendment. I question the point of order. It does not legislate, if I may speak.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today we passed an appropriations bill for agriculture. Let me first spend a second giving my impressions of the predicament that American agriculture is now facing. On a level playing field, American agriculture could compete favorably with most any other country in the world on most any of the commodities that we produce. Part of the challenge in our Federal agricultural policy is the fact that other countries subsidize their farmers much more than we subsidize our farmers in this country. So, for example, Europe subsidizes five times as much as we do, and the consequences are that the additional production from those farmers and in those countries that are heavily subsidized often take what would otherwise be our markets to sell our particular agricultural products. Farmers today face some of the lowest commodity prices they have seen in the last 15, 20, 25 years, depending on the particular commodity. So as we try to develop agricultural policy in the next several weeks for what is going to partially determine the destiny and, in many cases, the survival or bankruptcy or going out of business of many farmers in the United States, we need to look at how we spend Federal taxpayer dollars to most effectively, number one, assure that the agricultural industry that we want to keep in America stays here and is able to survive; number two, that still the marketplace and those individual farmers that are efficient and productive tend to have the kind of incomes that are going to allow them and their families to stay on that family farm operation. One of the amendments I had today on the agricultural appropriations bill was an amendment that would put a payment limitation on farmers. We are now seeing a situation where our farm programs, our Federal farm policy, since we started it in 1934, has tended to favor the large farmers. The result is that those large farmers, with the additional advantage of Government payments, ended up trying to buy out the smaller farms and became even larger. If there is some merit in having a Federal agricultural policy that helps the traditional family farm survive without giving, then it is going to be a situation that does not give an additional advantage to the huge, large farmer. Some farmers in the loan program, the price support program for commodities that we have as part of our Federal farm policy, still continue to favor that large farmer. The average farm size in the United States is about 420 acres. To exceed the current limits in law of not more than $75,000 per farmer in this loan, minimum price protection policy that we have, we see a lot of farmers now that have gone way over the average of 420 acres. We have 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80,000 acre farms. Because we have no limit on the price support of those farmers, then some of these farms are taking in $1 million, or some of these farmers are taking in $1 million-plus in farm payments. As we face the predicament of trying to be as frugal and as well- managed as we can on the available resources in this country, we need to look at the kind of policy that does not continue to favor those large farmers, and putting a real limit on how much taxpayers should be paying to any farmer should be part of that consideration. I am disappointed that my amendment today was ruled out of order, but it is an issue as we start developing new farm legislation that we have to deal with in terms of assuring not only that we have the kind of agricultural production in this country that is not going to put us at a security disadvantage, and I use the comparison of oil. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, we are now dependent almost 40 percent on imported energy from petroleum products. We have seen the power of OPEC in raising their prices and making us pay the higher price. That same thing could happen to agriculture, so the decisions we make in agricultural policy are extremely important. Favoring the traditional family farm and not favoring the huge farm corporations must be part of our agricultural agenda.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Jennifer Arver, winner of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship, Jennifer is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. Jennifer Arver is an exceptional student at Bronson High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Jennifer has received numerous awards for her involvement in 4-H, as well as high school athletics. She has participated in student government and is a member of the Youth Advisory Council. Jennifer is active in her community, volunteering as a mentor with the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program, and as a member of the Branch County Finance Board. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Jennifer Arver for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Kristin Anderson, winner of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship, Kristin is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. Kristin is an exceptional student at Columbia Central High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Kristin has received numerous awards for her excellence in academics, as well as her involvement in soccer and volleyball. She is active in student government, serving as President of the National Honor Society and Secretary of the student body. Kristin's volunteer efforts include helping to organize a local coat drive and working with the Toys for Tots Program. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Kristin Anderson for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a sincere pleasure to recognize the finalists of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Scholarship Program. This special honor is an appropriate tribute to the academic accomplishment, demonstration of leadership and responsibility, and commitment to social involvement displayed by these remarkable young adults. We all have reason to celebrate their success, for it is in their promising and capable hands that our future rests: Brian Anderson of Lansing, Michigan; Nicole Beil of Tecumseh, Michigan; Leah Brady, of Battle Creek, Michigan; Jeremy Connin of Jackson, Michigan; Lindsay Elliott of Pittsford, Michigan; Calby Garrison, of Onsted, Michigan; Aaron Heinen of Battle Creek, Michigan; Sarah Holliday of Hillsdale, Michigan; Stephanie Lallemand of Battle Creek, Michigan; Tabbetha McLain of Quincy, Michigan; Molly Miller of Marshall, Michigan; Jessica Muterspaugh of Spring Arbor, Michigan; Teresa Reinker of Horton, Michigan; Adam Shissler of Jackson, Michigan; Anna Vanderstelt of Charlotte, Michigan; and Randi Wigent of Reading, Michigan. The finalists of the LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship Program are being honored for showing that same generosity of spirit, depth of intelligence, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. They are young men and women of character, ambition, and initiative, who have already learned well the value of hard work, discipline, and commitment. These exceptional students have consistently displayed their dedication, intelligence, and concern throughout their high school experience. They are people who stand out among their peers due to their many achievements and the disciplined manner in which they meet challenges. While they have already accomplished a great deal, these young people possess unlimited potential, for they have learned the keys to success in any endeavor. I am proud to join with their many admirers in extending our highest praise and congratulations to the finalists of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship Program.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Erin Doherty, winner of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship, Erin is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. Erin Doherty is an exceptional student at Jonesville High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Erin has received numerous awards for her academic achievement and her success as a young athlete. She is active in student government, serving as President of her class, and participates in the high school and pep bands. Erin is active in S.A.D.D. and the Jr. Rotary, Interact. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Erin Doherty for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today, in a few minutes, we will take up the agricultural bill. In agricultural appropriations we do several things: we have a program in this country with our Federal agricultural policy that guaranties a farmer a minimum price that they can receive from the program commodity crops that they grow. The problem we are dealing with in an amendment I will offer today says there should be a limitation on how much money goes to any particular producer. The limitation under current law is $75,000. In the bill that was debated under suspension, unavailable for any amendments 2 weeks ago, we increased that to $150,000. I think when we consider that the giant farm operations are taking a lot of that price support money and realistically taking away from the small family farmer, we need to decide what Federal farm policy should be. I would ask my colleagues to consider an amendment of $75,000 per producer. We have producers in this country that are now getting $1.2 million. The average size of farm in this country is 420 acres. We have farms up to 80,000 acres. We should be looking at helping family farmers with Federal farm policy.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Emily Stack, winner of the 2001 LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship, Emily is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan. Emily Stack is an exceptional student at Lenawee Christian High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Emily has received numerous awards for her academic achievement, as well as receiving state recognition for her excellent oratory skills. She is active in student government, serving as President of her class for two years. Emily has volunteered her time to various community service projects, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters and Project Build. Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Emily Stack for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Congressional Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we are going to be taking up the agricultural appropriation bill; and I would like to for a couple of minutes discuss, number one, the seriousness of the agricultural problem; but, secondly, an amendment that I have tomorrow that deals with how we distribute some of this Federal money to farmers. There are a lot of us that would hope that these extra funds go to help support the traditional family farmers in this country. However, our farm programs since we started them back in 1934 have tended to favor the large farmer. And so what has happened over the years is the small farmer has been forced out because of the advantages of Federal farm policy to the middle-sized and larger farmer; and the middle-sized farmer, figuring that they might survive, have bought out the small farmer and become bigger. Specifically, we have legislation that says the price support for farmers in this country through the Federal Government should be limited to $75,000. If a farmer wants to include their spouse or usually their wife for a separate producer payment, then they have to jump through all kinds of hoops to borrow money in the spouse's name and then document that it was invested in the farm operation, then the farm operation can pay it back. It is a disadvantage. My amendment tomorrow does essentially three things: it says automatically the wife is included as a producer without jumping through these bureaucratic hoops, eligible for an additional $75,000 payment limitation. The average size of a farm in this country now, Mr. Speaker, is about 448 acres. But some farms, some huge, giant corporation-type farms are up to 80,000 acres and 100,000 acres; and there is no payment limitation on those farms. So as you can guess, millions of dollars go out to those huge farming operations. My amendment tomorrow says, let us stick to our guns of the historic $75,000 limitation but automatically include spouses. That would move it up to $150,000. And let us make sure that there is no loophole such as forfeiting a nonrecourse loan or such as certificates that can be issued by the Federal Government in lieu of forfeiture of that particular loan, because those certificates, the alternative of those forfeitures of that loan, has resulted in approximately $400 million extra payment going to those giant farmers. Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues look at this amendment, that they consider the policy of how we want to spend this extra money, that they face the decision of what should farm programs try to do in this country; and I would suggest humbly that part of what we should be trying to do is help the small family farmer. The large farmer already has a competitive advantage, simply because of the size of their operation. We expand that advantage as we pay them on the bushels produced on each acre or the tons produced. Whether it is rice or corn or soybeans or cotton, we help that large farmer. I feel it is important that we look at this policy, and I would request that my colleagues look at my amendment that will reaffirm the historical provision of limiting those payments to $75,000 rather than the $150,000 per producer that was passed out on a suspension vote late in June when the House went through that particular legislation without the opportunity for any amendments.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlemen for their interest in providing wholesome food. It is important. I would like to point out, however, that regarding the Starlink corn question, it has now been certified that there has been no ill effects to humans. That is good news. I would like to also point out that, because we have been cross- breeding for 1,000 years, every food item that we buy in a store, except a couple varieties of fish, have been genetically modified. This has happened simply because farmers have been looking for ways to improve the quality and cost of food. I think it is very important that we continue our scientific effort with this new technology of genetic modification. We must also consider the importance of its tremendous potential in developing better food products and more healthy products. We can develop food products that have vaccines. Also, especially in the developing countries of this world, we now have the potential of developing the kind of plants and seeds that can grow in those arid soils or those other types of climatic conditions where they could not grow food before. So we need to proceed in our scientific research. Just a point before I yield for a comment. We have the best regulatory system in the world in terms of our oversight of genetically engineered products. Between the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we now have the ability to review, regulate and test these products that are coming to market to assure safety.