Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman for his statement, and certainly all his personal support for our first responders and law enforcement personnel in this Nation.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4514, the Veterans' Major Medical Facility Construction Act, H.R. 4015, the Jobs for Veterans Act, and H.R. 4085, the Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act. Next week, millions of Americans will take off and gather together with family and friends to pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces and their loved ones who sacrificed so much to defend our precious liberties. Well over 1 million men and women have given their lives in service to our country. These people answered their country's call to serve--in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the First and Second World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Operation Enduring Freedom, and in many small, but important military actions around the globe. For their sacrifice, they deserve our most profound respect and gratitude. It is the willingness of citizens then and now taking individual responsibility in our Nation's defense that is the ultimate guarantee of our security and freedom. The terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of September 11 underestimated us. Since September 11, the Nation has not fallen apart, it has pulled together, confident in our traditions of freedom, tolerance, and democracy. Today, our armed forces are in the field defending our liberties against the terrorist threat. We have the finest fighting force in the world, and they are doing a tremendous job. At home our first responders--firefighters, emergency medical and ambulance services, law enforcement, and National Guard--are being called upon for more homeland security. I am confident that we will prevail and become even stronger as a Nation. This Memorial Day, as we celebrate those who gave their lives, we should also pause to consider the veterans among us who have contributed so much and who are such an important part of our communities. As one who had a brother killed in the line of duty in Asia and as a former Air Force officer myself, I understand the sacrifices that our service men and women and their families make. The bills we are voting on today are designed to increase employment opportunities for veterans, improve VA facilities, and provide needed cost-of-living increases for disability compensation. There is more that we need to do to improve the way the VA does business. We need to ensure that veterans' disability claims are processed quickly and accurately, that health care delivery is improved by coordinating the medical care systems of VA and the Department of Defense, and that resources are focused on treating disabled and low-income veterans. Under the leadership of President Bush and VA Secretary Principi, I believe we are going to make significant improvements in the delivery of veterans benefits. Over the years, our military veterans have kept faith with their country in times of need. With these bills, we will be helping to keep faith with them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of welfare reform back in 1996, we moved from a welfare system that bred dependency to one that offers self-sufficiency, and probably even more important, allowing those individuals to regain some of their self- respect. Rather than just being given something for nothing, now they are working. Since 1996, Michigan, like the Nation, has reduced its welfare caseload by 60 percent. I have been inspired and encouraged by the many success stories in my congressional district of individuals going from welfare to work. Darryl Grubbs is one, and Kendra Norton is another that I have met with whose lives have been turned around thanks to the encouragement of the 1996 welfare reform. These people now have a better life for themselves, and very importantly, better lives for their kids. They tell me that their children are now more proud of their parents, that they are actually doing better in school than they did when they were on welfare. In conclusion, as the House takes up welfare reauthorization, we should be continuing a system that helps people. I urge Members to make a good program even better by supporting this bill today.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with much of what the gentleman from Ohio says, because that is part of our concern in this bill. What it calls for is more research. More research is going to include not only what it can do for people but also to increase the safety of any resulting product. The gentleman mentioned that a lot of the private research so far in this area has been to simply increase profits. That is the kind of private research in genomics that have been directed at plant products that can be sold because they increase yield or they reduce the cost for the farmer. If we are going to have the kind of research that helps people, there is no doubt that Federal funding for genomic research is important, that research in areas possibly has no profit potential but that can help alleviate poverty, that can protect the environment, that can improve human health, and that can reduce our overdependence on petroleum products. Reducing our dependency on petrolium energy is one of the areas that I have been concerned about. We have the potential to enhance the nitrogen-fixing capability of agricultural plants. Right now nitrogen fertilizer uses up approximately 6 percent of the natural gas in this country. If we can enhance the legumes the nodules that are now in the clovers, in the soybeans, in the alfalfas, to fix that nitrogen in the soil much more effectively and efficiently and we have that potential, then we are going to reduce our dependence on energy. Let me say that the Wall Street Journal yesterday ran an editorial by Norman Borlaug, best known as the Father of the Green Revolution. His work in developing higher yielding varieties of rice and wheat is credited with saving perhaps 1 billion people in China and India from starvation in the 1970s. Borlaug is now devoted to bringing about similar advancements in Africa where starvation remains all too common. What is his solution? His solution is to develop high yield varieties of traditional African crops such as cowpeas, cassava and how can we get there in part through biotechnology which has already shown promise for producing plants that are more tolerant to drought or can grow in soils that are too base or too acid or too salty that they cannot grow those crops now. I would hope the gentleman would consider supporting this bill to give us the kind of research to not only ensure the safety that some are concerned about, that he is concerned about and that I am concerned about and that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) is concerned about, but to develop the kind of products that can help people, not simply reduce the price to farmers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the language in the bill was not for-profit companies, it is for nonprofit organizations to be involved, so the nonprofits that are interested in something beside profit.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Texas and I, agree on a lot of these issues. The plant genome and gene expression centers will take plant biotechnology research into the next phase, beyond simply mapping and sequencing genes and toward a better understanding of gene expression. We have got the Aradopsis plant. We have cataloged those genes. We have determined the folding of several of those genes to learn more about what particular genes do. But there is a tremendous void in the information that we need to make sure the new plants are safe. Let us not argue against having more research. Let us not argue against maybe having government do a little bit of this research instead of leaving it to the private sector that are forced to have some kind of financial rewards for what they do. The centers are going to expand on NSF's current activities in gene research by providing central locations for multidisciplinary interactive approaches to plant biotech research. This will allow researchers to develop the kind of research to allow development of safe and beneficial plant varieties and plant-derived applications. Specifically in this bill, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the centers will conduct research in plant genomics related to the development of the kind of information that can lead to new varieties of enhanced crops, including those grown in nontraditional environments and those grown with reduced reliance on chemical fertilizers. These may include research into enhancing the nitrogen-fixing ability of legumes, that I earlier mentioned. The primary input, of course, of nitrogen is natural gas, so we can make ourselves a little more energy dependent while we increase the safety of the environment. The centers are also going to expand on current biotechnology efforts that have primarily been focused on improving the production and the cost and the quantity. And exactly like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) says, we are going to move away from that to the kind of research that is going to give us better information. I believe we are on the threshold of a new era in food production. Biotechnology will be especially important to poor subsistence farmers across the globe who struggle against the odds to bring in a good crop each year. To address this problem, H.R. 2051 authorizes a program creating plant biotechnology partnerships for the developing world. This program is based on H.R. 2912, introduced by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). The plant biotechnology partnerships will provide the fundamental research needed to build on the current plant biotechnology base to address specific agricultural problems in the developing world.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2051) to provide for the establishment of regional plant genome and gene expression research and development centers, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation deals with a couple areas of research that the National Science Foundation is now involved in, and I would suggest that not only for the sake of this country but for the sake of the developing world that we move ahead with the kind of research in genetic modification that has the potential of not only reducing the price for farmers but that can help people. It will help people by giving a little additional priority to making sure that the products that are developed have that goal. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Science Subcommittee on Research, we held a number of hearings on plant genomics, and what I learned led me to issue a report on ``Plant Genomic Research to Improve Agriculture, Human Health and the Environment.'' This legislation builds on the NSF's success in funding merit-based competitive research by establishing two genomic initiatives at NSF: First, the plant genome plant gene expression research centers; and, two, the suggestion and legislation by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the partnerships for plant biotechnology in the developing world. The bill authorizes $9 million for fiscal year 2002, and $13.5 million for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to carry out these activities. What are we going to do with our new technology to make sure that we help people in this country and the rest of the world? And that is what these bills are all about, to make sure we move in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentleman will yield further, this is part of the language of the bill of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) originally. It does not give these companies the grant. They still go to the universities to make the decision of whether there is going to be any private involvement. That is one thing we have lacked as we searched for money, is trying to get more money in. But certainly they should not be allowed to dictate the kind of research to be done. I certainly appreciate that.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the tremendous potential of plant genomics is limited only by the creativity of the scientists and this body and Washington allowing them to do the research. This bill will help create the next generation of plants that will provide consumer benefits, for example, plants that can be engineered to produce compounds, such as enzymes used for food processing; food that provides vaccines and antibodies; compounds used to produce biodegradable plastics; renewable energy production. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the ranking majority member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for all of their support in bringing this bill to the floor; and of course, I wish to say a special thanks to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Research, for all of her input and help. I think together we have crafted a good bill that will make good programs even better.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) control 10 minutes of the time in favor of the passage of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill now under consideration, H.R. 2051.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a young scholarship winner from my district, Andrea Yeutter of Adrian, Michigan. Andrea has written an excellent essay that speaks about the part our Constitution plays in guiding our lives. It's always heartening to see young people concerned about the problems we face and interested in the affairs of government. Andrea speaks of our good fortune to live in a land where we are free to speak our minds and shape our own lives, a land safe for people of all religious faiths. In this essay Andrea Yeutter also speaks to the responsibility our Constitution places on us: the responsibility to nurture and defend this country so that we can pass on to our children a nation of greatness and freedom. I request that her essay be placed in the Congressional Record. Strength in Our Convictions (By Andrea Yeutter) Over two hundred years ago, our founding fathers sat in a crowded, stuffy room discussing how America should be governed. They knew too well the hard, oppressive hand of a government with too much power, but they also realized that without a strengthened central government our Nation could not survive. After much heated debate they emerged with a revolutionary new document--the Constitution of the United States of America. This outline of America's founding principles would be the envy of the world for generations to come, as well as a blessing to those who would live under it. In order for our Nation to continue in the prosperity and strength we have known, however, it is essential that each citizen respect the Constitution, the laws based on it, and the courts that interpret it. It is also essential that the laws we make and the rulings we hand down in our courtrooms be congruent with the intents our founding fathers had when writing the Constitution. Only in this way can we preserve the values passed down to us. The United States is unique in that it was founded on the belief that ``all men are created equal.'' Although in its early days slavery still existed and women still were not allowed to vote, America soon evolved into a Nation holding dearly to the principle that equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity belong to all, regardless of race, creed, color, nationality or sex. Even though we often take our privilege of equality for granted, we are reminded how truly fortunate we are when we are reminded of the atrocities taking place in other countries without this idea. Surely the Afghan women under the Taliban would have given anything to be American citizens, as well as the millions of poverty- stricken Indians who are victims of a degrading caste system. The principle of equal opportunity for all has allowed many people to improve themselves and the conditions in which they live. it gives us a sense of dignity to know that we are held as equals before the law, and a sense of responsibility to know that we are, for the most part, in control over the measure of success we achieve. This freedom is basic to a good government. Our founding fathers, believing strongly in these principles of equality and freedom, wisely established a government that would exist to protect the freedom of each individual, not to restrict it. They knew that men, if left to themselves, would act selfishly and limit the freedoms of others for their own benefit, and that governments would do the same if given too much power. Therefore, they set up some very definite boundaries and limitations for the central government to respect. I believe that if they were to see our country now, they would be grieved at how far the government has been allowed to pry into individual liberties. It is necessary for us, in the age of government expansion, to support the principle that governments should get involved only in those things that the people cannot do well, or at all, for themselves. This means that the government should play a minimal role in the private lives of its citizens, not going overboard on unnecessary taxation, or excessive social legislation, nor creating huge bureaucracies that bumble through issues the public could take care of itself. Rather it should partner with other facets of society to assist those who cannot provide for themselves chiefly through lower taxes, and allowing greater economic opportunity. This enables and encourages people to become self-supporting, productive citizens who take pride in their independence, rather than becoming weak, lazy complainers looking eagerly for the next welfare check to roll off the mill, forged by the sweat of hard-working taxpayers. If we hold to the values of individual freedom and minimal government interference, it is essential that we have a strong economy that will allow for a self-sufficient public. This strong economy must be laid on a foundation of a free enterprise system, and the encouragement of individual initiative. When this is accomplished, it produces business owners and workers that are proud of their hard work and of their accomplishments. They create better products at lower prices, which further stimulate the economy, creating more opportunities for people to advance themselves monetarily. In order for this to continue, however, the government must maintain sound money and be responsible for their economic endeavors. The rights of life and liberty are meaningless if citizens are deprived of their property through excessive taxation, inflation, and government waste. These things destroy individual initiative and the free-enterprise system. They invade the bounds of personal liberty by robbing individuals of their hard earned dollars, fostering the decay of economic prosperity, as well as creating growing resentment towards the government, which eventually leads to the downfall of a nation. In order to remain strong internally, and as a leading Nation of the world, America must continue to uphold the values it was founded upon. This means limiting the scope of government at home, while strengthening its position abroad. America must be uncompromising in the support of individual liberty across the globe, punishing those who attack it, and giving assistance to those who desire to gain it. Granted, we cannot become the ``policemen'' of the world, but it would be a crime against our blessed freedoms and against the values we hold so dear to sit by like weaklings and watch the freedoms of our fellow men decay. World peace and friendship will only continue through strength in our convictions and in our actions.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have a House rule that says we cannot debate the motion to recommit. There is going to be a motion to recommit this afternoon, so allow me to explain that motion to recommit now since we are not going to have a chance to talk about it when the motion is made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). There are a lot of things good about this bill. Farmers need some help; but there are some bad things about this bill. One is the fact that there is a loophole where farmers, where the huge farmers, the megafarms, can receive millions of dollars in price support payments every year. The Senate put in the provision to include generic certificates as part of the total price support limit that any farmer can have. We have a couple of States where many farmers exceed the limit and the lobbying has been tremendous. I have been receiving hundreds of calls saying we understand you are killing the farm bill, and then I explain to them what the motion to recommit does, and then they say, is that all it does. The only way this is going to kill the farm bill is if the chairman and the ranking member decide to take this back to committee and kill it themselves. Here is what the motion to recommit does: It is what we suggested in the motion to instruct on April 18 by a two-thirds vote when we instructed the conferees to include the provisions in the Senate bill that put an absolute payment limit on how much any farmer could get from price supports. The so-called loophole of generic certificates was included in the limit. I think in the long run, it is going to hurt our farmers and our chances to have legitimate Federal farm policy that helps the average farmer. The loophole helps a couple of States, Texas, California, Arkansas and Mississippi, gain more from the generic certificates than almost all of the rest of the States put together. There is a tremendous lobbying effort. Let us look at what is good policy, look at what is going to eventually help mainstream family farms in the United States. That is my request to this body. Vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have been involved in writing Federal farm legislation since the 1960s, when I was Michigan chairman of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and then I got an appointment in 1970 to be Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs in USDA down here in Washington. I appreciate the effort that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) have gone through in arguing how they resolved many of the disputed issues in this bill as we try to get something for the whole country. But it seems to me, and I would suggest to my colleagues, that our goal in farm policy should be that we develop and help the mainstream family farmers in this country. And you can argue how big is a family farm, but if you are talking about 20,000, 40,000, 60,000, 80,000 acres owned by the big landholders, that now have a loophole provision that is not subject to any payment limitation, then you are talking about a situation that puts the average family farmer at a disadvantage. The average commercial farm operation in this country is a little over 900 acres. I am disappointed. This House, on my motion to recommit on April 18, voted overwhelmingly, 265 votes, to have the Senate provisions on payment limitations. This was not acknowledged by the conferees. The conferees should not be the House, they should reflect the will of the House. Senator Grassley just called me and said, look, we have done some whipping; we originally passed that provision for payment limitations by a little over two-thirds; we will accept the motion to recommit of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to reinstate the Senate payment limitations. The Senate per farmer, per year payment limitation gets rid of the loophole. The loophole is the fact that benefits from generic certificates are not included as part of the pay limitation. Without getting into detail, it is a maneuver where the loan price support programs do not come into play. As long as there is the tremendous pressures, special interest pressure, to have unlimited payment limitations that place our family farms at a disadvantage, I am very concerned about the future of ag legislation in the country.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the sentiments expressed by many of my House colleagues about the need for Israel to defend itself, I do not think that this is the right time for Congress to take sides in the Israel-Palestine affair. In foreign affairs America should speak with one voice. The president has said that this resolution only complicates an already complicated situation in the Middle East. Instead of having a separate congressional message, I believe we should be giving the President greater leeway to act as an honest broker between the Israelis and Palestinians and formulate a policy that will stop the violence and get negotiations going forward. On April 10, I met with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the current fighting in the Middle East. He stressed the difficulty of negotiating with the Palestinians, and warned that if the suicide bombings in Israel do not stop, then they may spread to the United States with `suitcase bombs.' But the U.S., as a military superpower and an economic superpower as well, can exert considerable pressure on both sides to encourage a resolution. Secretary of State Colin Powell confronted an almost intractable set of problems on his peace mission to the Middle East. The Israeli government continues to occupy parts of the Palestinian Authority's territory despite requests to desist and withdraw from President Bush. Too many governments in the region, including Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, are ambiguous at best on their commitment to end terror. Although some Arab states have helpfully indicated their willingness to accept Israel, too many still confuse murder with martyrdom. When the United Nations mandated the creation of Israel and Palestine out of British-controlled territory in 1947, it offered to partition the land between a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab-controlled Palestine. That offer was rejected then, and though Israel was limited to the area of the proposed partition, a coalition of Arab states including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan immediately attacked. Israel prevailed in that war, however, as it did in the subsequent wars of 1967 and 1972. Although Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, the other Arab countries maintain a state of ``cold'' war with Israel. The situation is further confused by land Israel captured in various conflicts, primarily the 1967 war. In that fight, Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza, including Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority now occupies the bulk of that territory as a result of the Oslo peace process. Israel offered nearly all of that territory two years ago for the creation of a Palestinian state. That offer was rejected, sparking the present conflict. The current cycle of violence in the region must not continue. The killing and bloodshed on both sides is blocking a resolution to the conflict and an end to our war on terrorism. Most everyone from Palestine and Israel has had a friend or relative injured or killed by the other side. The hatred that exists on both sides will not be easily overcome. For its part, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab world should take strong action to curb the mindless violence of suicide bombers. A Palestinian state should be established and the Arab world should accept the suggestion of Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel. At the same time, Israel must withdraw from Palestinian Authority territory as the President has requested. Accomplishing these acts, however, will not reduce the hatred. I see a need to build some physical separation between the two states until the animosity can subside. The President is demonstrating bold leadership and wants results. An anxious world also wants results, especially the suffering innocents in Israel and Palestine. We need to speak with one voice and that is why I am voting no on this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, I would just call to all our colleagues and all staff that might be watching. There is not going to be any debate allowed on this motion to recommit that sets real limits that this House and the Senate has voted for. That motion will come up tomorrow. The failure to include real payments limits in the farming bill, I think, is an example of entrenched special interests frustrating the will of the majority. The conferees, generally the most senior Members of the House and Senate Committee on Agriculture have chosen to ignore public sentiment and congressional sentiment in both the popular vote in both the House and the Senate in favor of serving the largest corporate farms and major grain traders. They have also slighted I think our President, President Bush, who last August noted the plight of medium-sized farms, and he promised, and I quote again the President, ``One of the things that we are going to make sure of as we restructure the farm program next year is that the money goes to the people it is meant to help.'' Limiting subsidies for any single farmer is an idea whose time has come. If we continue with unlimited government payments under the farm bill for another 6 years, we will see increasing concern among the American people as farmers with huge land holdings with a lower marginal cost of production, pocket an ever-increasing share while more small and medium-size farms go out of business. The decision for extra production by the very large farmers should be based on the market, not on a guaranteed government price. The public expects farm policy to focus on helping average traditional size family farms. Congress should respect that. Mr. Speaker, I understand, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is considering leaving Congress after this next term. He has been a strong voice in an area that usually has not had a voice, and so he certainly has the appreciation of me and many Members of this Congress in his willingness to speak out on some of these tough issues.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly review, or sort of give the skinny on what I see happening in the farm bill. Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat of North Dakota and Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, were the leaders over in the Senate that said, look, for the long run, long-term good of farmers and farm programs, let us put a cap on these multimillion dollar payments that are going out to some of these huge mega-farm and landowners. They said that there is enough votes in the Senate to recommit with instructions that we go back to the original Senate language on payment limitations. However, the rules are that if the House passes a farm bill prior to the Senate having the opportunity to recommit, then the Senate no longer has that opportunity to make a motion to recommit if the House passes the bill. I suspect that that is some of the reason that our leaders in the Conference Committee on Agriculture, our chairman, our ranking member, decided to bring this up even before CBO has completed their cost estimates to file the bill, to bring the bill to a vote tomorrow. In the process of recommitting this bill back with specific instructions, that first option goes to the Democrats. Normally, the ranking member of that particular committee has a lot of decision- making ability as to how that works. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has his motion to reconstruct that puts payment limitations on. Can the gentleman give us the latest? Will we find out later tonight whether or not the gentleman's motion is going to be offered?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am going to spend some minutes talking about something that I think is very important to this country, certainly important to farmers. That is the new farm bill. In 1996, we passed farm legislation that was called Freedom to Farm. It was actually a program that phased out government farm program payments, and the challenge that we are facing in this country, almost everybody wants some of those open spaces, almost everybody in America would like the opportunity to have fresh products. In America, we appreciate the fact that we have the most healthy, the most low-cost food in terms of a percentage of our take-home dollar of any country in the world. The Freedom to Farm Act passed in 1996 gave farmers a farm payment in 1996. The total payout amounted to about $6 billion. It phased down the payment for each of the next 7 years, in a sense, telling farmers in the United States that they are going to have to start producing for the market, not for government programs. They are going to have to make their best guess on how much of what crop to plant based on the information they have for the marketplaces. That is the way that the system in America has always worked. That is why we have surged ahead economically. We had a system when our Founders wrote the Constitution, that the people that work hard and try and are most efficient and learn, and put that learning to use end up better off than those that do not, and that has been part of the motivation in our economy. And it has also been part of the reason our farm industry has become probably more efficient than any other country, and we are competitive in almost every commodity. If there was an open playing field, we probably could compete effectively with most countries. We are now making a dramatic change to make farmers dependent on government farm payments, and we do this in a couple of ways. We encourage more production which brings down the price of the commodity that they sell, and we say to the very huge mega-farms and large landowners with 20,000 acres of farmland or 80,000 or 120,000 acres of farmlands, the giants, the corporation-type farms, that we will give them a government price support check for every bushel of grain that they produce and every pound of cotton that they produce. What reaction does that have in the marketplace? It is going to mean that there is going to be more production, and the challenges are that more production is going to result in lower prices. We now find ourselves in the midst in a battle for democracy. Even as the President works against the undemocratic axis of evil, he may want to take a few moments to counter some undemocratic currents in our own Congress. At the conclusion of the conference on the farm bill reauthorization that was just completed, H.R. 2646, the conference report was filed earlier this morning and it is on the floor tomorrow, I think it is clear that the conferees have defied the will of both Houses of Congress by perpetuating these unlimited farmer subsidies which will allow farms to draw millions of dollars in price support payments. By giving these very large farms this kind of unlimited guarantee of a government price support, they can farm the program rather than farm the products of their soil in relation to the marketplace. The purpose of subsidies since farm programs began back in 1933 has been to protect family farmers. It was a mistake to get into the business of subsidizing every single acre and subsidizing every single bushel and every single pound of production, regardless of the producer's size and income. operations to get bigger and bigger. About 82 percent, Mr. Speaker, 82 percent of all farm production subsidies now go to the largest 17 percent of farms. I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to invite any of my colleagues, both who support unlimited payments and those that do not support unlimited payments, to come to the floor to talk about this issue, because tomorrow we are going to have a recommit vote of the agriculture bill. We are going to talk about the agriculture bill, and then there is going to be a motion to recommit with instructions that some of the provisions of limitation apply to that particular farm bill. So it is important that we talk about this today, because under the rules of the House, there will not be any debate or discussion tomorrow on that motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, this policy of giving most of the farm government payment subsidies to the largest farms also puts upward pressure on land prices and rents, and, as we mentioned, it contributes to overproduction because the largest farm operations can get a guaranteed government price on unlimited acres. The result is lower commodity prices, driving more family farmers off the farm. I see the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has arrived in the Chamber. I want to yield to the gentleman. I was disappointed that the gentleman did not have a chance to present his motion to instruct because they very quickly brought to the floor their filing of the agriculture bill, which preempted your opportunity to give more suggestions to the conferees. But, on the other hand, when 265 Members of this Chamber, almost two- thirds of this Chamber, voted the other week to instruct conferees to have some kind of real payment limitations, they disregarded it. It approaches arrogance when they say we do not care how most of the Members of this Chamber vote or, how many, it was 64 to 31 in the Senate, that said let us have real payment limitations. Maybe the gentleman's amendment would not have accomplished what we hoped it would. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, that might hit our family farmers that are producing sugar even more aggressively than the tariff rate quotas that we tried to develop to protect them.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I see also that this is a problem of the survival of the future of farm programs. With all of this publicity that is going out, and it does not matter what paper we pick up, they now realize that there is a loophole; and the Environmental Working Group has passed out the information that a lot of these big corporate-type farms are getting a lot of the money. I think that is going to come back to hurt the average family farm in terms of the kind of programs that we can offer here in Washington, D.C., because it is bad publicity, so a lot of people start thinking, well, farmers are already rich. They are getting these million-dollar payments. The fact is exactly as the gentleman suggests, that in our efforts to appease these large, influential farms, these large landowners, the large grain and cotton dealers, we have come up with a program that allows those big farmers the incentive to have unlimited production, overproduction, really, if you will. That means that the prices are going to go down for everybody else, with more pressure on those farmers. When push comes to shove in the next 10 or 15 years, when we are looking at the survival of Social Security and the survival of Medicare, and we say, well, are we going to have to cut off some of the farm programs because a lot of people in America say we are giving too much money to these rich farmers anyway, what do Members think is going to happen? What is going to happen is we are going to cut down on farm programs. At that time, probably we will cut down on the big, large million- dollar payments to the big farmers, too. But probably it is going to jeopardize the effectiveness of the farm programs for the survival of the agriculture industry in the United States. That is one of my main concerns.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. Of course, with the rush on this bill, there is a lot of work to do in informing our Members of what the gentleman's amendment is, and I think most of us in this room are cosponsoring it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).