Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jennifer Jean Smith on the release of True North, a musical album that she both wrote and composed. Jennifer's love of music and words began at an early age. Always a singer and performer, grade school led to choirs, show choirs and many gigs as a soloist. An outgoing yet introspective young Jennifer displayed her writing skills at an early age. Little blank books became filled with poetry, and an antique typewriter became a favorite tool for composing stories. An old upright piano, passed on by Jennifer's grandmother, Ruth Smith, a beloved music teacher and musician, served as the instrument for the composition of early songs, including ``The Energy Crisis'' written in the early 70s. Jennifer said, dreaming of being a star is one thing, but for a small town girl raised on a dairy farm, actually knowing how one goes about such a thing is quite another. ``There were many challenges.'' Her first years of college were spent at Michigan State University where she pursued a career that included music. Jennifer moved to Ann Arbor in 1990. Once settled and working at the University of Michigan, she turned her attention again to making music and writing songs. Picking up and learning to play the guitar soon led to many finished songs and trips to Nashville. Jennifer launched her own music publishing company, The Michigan Rose Music Co., and record label, Michigan Rose Records. In June 2001, Michigan Rose Records released its first single, True North, the title cut to Jennifer's first CD. True North--relating to the life and death of Dale Earnhardt, the race car hero--was recorded along with four other original songs in Nashville this past May. The CD, which was recorded and produced by Phil Dillon at Nickel City Studios, features her daughter Jackie on background vocals and a group of world-class Nashville studio musicians. Despite being an independent release, the single has received airtime on major country radio stations across the United States and has resulted in further opportunities to write and sing--the beginning of a long-awaited dream. Mr. Speaker, we congratulate Jennifer Jean Smith for her perseverance and success.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring something to the attention of the chairman and the body that an engineer and pilot in my district suggested that we have a separate entrance for pilots and a solid bulkhead, doing away or reducing the need for security police on the plane, reducing the need to have threats of terrorists or hijackers. So I hope this is one of the areas that the Department will be looking into, and I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that a lot of us become a little impatient in light of the terrorist threat, and I rise this morning with a little impatience to scold the United States Department of Agriculture, maybe request that they give consideration to a resolution that 30 of us introduced. That resolution, which is H.Con.Res. 258, called for more cooperation between the United States Department of Agriculture and HHS in the food inspection at our borders, the food products coming into the United States. There is a lot of overlap. We need better cooperation. If it is an open-face sandwich, one agency inspects it. If it is two slices of bread, another agency inspects it. If it is a burrito with cheese, then it is inspected by HHS. If it is a burrito with meat, then it is inspected by USDA. At this time we need better cooperation. I would request that USDA evaluate this and either act to make the difference or come up with support for this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is vital to our efforts to eliminate the flow of illicit drugs into our Nation's communities. Additionally, we need to better attack terrorist organizations that use drug trade as a revenue source. While these measures are very important, I also urge the conferees on this bill to be careful not to give undue promotion to import products such as asparagus into this country that unfairly undercut American agricultural producers.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the VA/HUD Conference Report. I am particularly pleased that the conferees have included a significant increase in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF). Today, NSF is at the forefront of innovation, supporting cutting-edge research to answer fundamental questions within and across scientific disciplines. Often the potential for failure is as great as that for success. But by encouraging such risks, NSF has helped fuel new industries and jobs that have propelled economic prosperity and changed the way we live. Many of the technologies that come from NSF research may also help us in the fight against terrorism. Nanotechnology, for example, promises revolutionary advances. Research will enable the development of sensors for biological and chemical agents that may be used on the battlefield or even, unfortunately, may find there way into domestic civilian systems. NSF-sponsored research in this area has led to the development of a simple, relatively inexperience sensor that can selectively detect the DNA of biological agents. It is now in commercial development with successful tests against anthrax and tuberculosis. NSF has also demonstrated the dual use of its research by quickly dispatching its earthquake engineering experts to the World Trade Center who will use the knowledge gained to improve building designs. Robots, developed with NSF support were also sent to New York to help in the search for victims and I understand that FEMA is now considering adopting these robots for all of its search and rescue operations. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, I will be looking for ways to engage NSF more fully in this effort. It seems clear that basic research enables so many unforeseen advances that will help us face this new terrorism threat and that now more than ever we must renew our commitment to supporting this research. NSF programs also play a big role in increasing the pool of talented scientists in our universities and workforce. This is critical. It is estimated that by 2020, 60 percent of the jobs will require the skills only 22 percent of the workforce has today. As this Conference Report shows, there is strong bipartisan support for increased investment in basic science. It includes an 8.2 percent increase in the NSF budget to nearly $4.8 billion for fiscal year 2002. This is the largest budget ever for NSF. I am particularly pleased that the conferees have specified $75 million for plant genomics research on commercially important plants, an area in which I have a great interest. Agricultural biotechnology is beginning to fulfill its potential, but we have only just scratched the surface. This funding will help scientists develop new knowledge that will propel this field forward. The enhanced crop plants coming from this research will help feed the world, reduce our use of chemicals, and create new markets for farmers. Mr. Speaker, the science funding in this bill will help keep the pipeline of new ideas and innovation flowing. I urge my colleagues to support this Conference Report.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the service in the Armed Forces for all American men has been an experience that has I think unified us in this country. It has been a common experience of getting up early in the morning, eating mediocre food, but mostly understanding how the military works and understanding the importance of patriotism in this country. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to realize that within a few years there will be nobody in this Chamber that has served in the military. In a few years, there will be nobody in State legislatures that has served in the military except, possibly, for maybe a few heroes that have come back and had the name ID that allows them to run for political office. I think that is a great danger in terms of the understanding of legislative bodies here in the U.S. House of Representatives, over in the U.S. Senate and certainly in all our legislative bodies, the State legislatures, as well as municipal jurisdictions. That experience of serving in the military has unified us. I have been working on legislation for the past 5 years that would reinstate military conscription in a process that is both voluntary and mandatory. It would direct the Secretary of the Army and the President to reinstate a conscription between 6 months and 1 year where those individuals would go through a kind of orientation of boot camp, but also the learning of international relations, the learning of terrorism and how terrorists work and where they come from, a better understanding of the different goals of the countries around the world, and then after, but also the military discipline of that kind of basic boot camp orientation. After that there would be a discretion. If they do not want to continue to serve in that kind of military combat training role for the rest of that 6-month period or for the rest of that year period discretionarily, they would have the option of working in community service or going into AmeriCorps or going into some other service for the government. They would receive modest pay but exceptional training to bring back that kind of unity of experience that is so important, I think, as we conduct business that involves, more and more, the rest of the world. An understanding of international relations has been so obvious since the September 11 attack on this country. I would encourage my colleagues to call me or my office to get a copy of this draft legislation, to look into the possibility of renewing military conscription in both a mandatory and a voluntary way that they could earn credits with the GI Bill of Rights provisions for the time that they serve their country. It would give those individuals the kind of experience, but more than that, it would be a binding force of common experience that would hold this country together.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce our guest chaplain today, and we certainly welcome today's distinguished guest chaplain, my personal pastor, Reverend John Reist, Junior. Reverend Reist is a great American and a community leader. He has served as a veteran in the Armed Forces. He now combines his duty at the Somerset Congregational Church with his work as a professor of Christianity and literature at Hillsdale College. He has been recognized as teacher of the year, served as academic dean and is now the executive director of the Michigan Association of Scholars. He holds a Ph.D. degree in English from the University of Chicago and has been widely published. His warmth, his devotion, his humor and understanding make him an outstanding counselor to his congregants and his students. These qualities have led to a doubling of our congregation in the 3 years since he came to our church. Reverend Reist is distinguished by his love for his family, his church and his college, and his ability to motivate and cultivate those around him. I am proud to welcome him here today as our guest chaplain.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is to clarify an aspect of the legislation. One idea to increase airplane safety would be to create separate entrances for pilots on aircraft and eliminate access between the cabin and the cockpit. This would make it impossible to take over an aircraft from the cabin, reducing the risk of terrorism and the need for air marshals and other precautions. I would like to make sure there is nothing in this bill which prevents the FAA from studying this idea or airlines pursuing this implementation, should it prove feasible and effective.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 3150 to improve the security of air travel. This bill establishes a clear federal responsibility to ensure airport safety. It creates a new Under Secretary in the Department of Transportation to set and implement the tough new security standards. One major question has been whether or not every screener will be a federal employee. Instead of worrying about whether the person screening your luggage is a federal employee or an employee of a federal contractor, we should be focusing on results and accountability. Under this bill, screeners would have to undergo rigorous background and fingerprint checks performed by the federal government and would be trained by the federal government with strict requirements. Moreover, their performance would be monitored and assessed by federal employees. Those who do not meet the high standards set by the federal government would be dismissed. Further, the bill mandates a federal or state law enforcement presence at each screening location. Moreover, the bill allows for the flexibility that will be needed to hire and fire employees, test new ideas, procedures, and technology. Wedding ourselves to a less flexible, rigid federal system will make it more difficult to assure safety. It is also important that we do not impose a one-size-fits-all system on all airports. DOT should be given the different options for different situations at different airports. This bill would provide such flexibility while at the same time requiring adherence to strict standards. Unlike the Senate bill, this bill gives the President through one agency, DOT, primary responsibility. It seems to me that one of the weaknesses in our security that the September 11 terrorists were able to exploit was the lack of inter-agency communication. We are beginning to address that weakness. I believe it is better to have these functions in one agency not only to reduce costs, but to ensure proper co-ordination. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides a comprehensive new approach to airline security. I urge Members to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, with this resolution we honor those who on September 11 paid the ultimate sacrifice--the firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and police who are the first to arrive at the scene of an emergency, and the last to leave. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, more public safety officers were lost in the attack on the United States yesterday than any other single event in modern history. As the Nation mourns the deaths of thousands of our fellow citizens, as we take stock of the destruction caused by last week's terrorist attacks, we should also pause for a moment to reflect on the brave men and women in New York City who put their lives on the line to protect fellow citizens. In every small town and suburb and big city across America, there are people just like the over 300 first responders who gave their lives in New York. In Michigan, we too have experienced the loss of emergency personnel. Last year alone, four Michigan firefighters lost their lives. Each of these deaths is a tragedy for family, friends, and community. What happened at the World Trade Center in New York will live in our memories forever. We can be proud that at a time of great peril, the Nation's first responders answered the call, conducting themselves with a selflessness and dedication that does credit to themselves, their city, and their country. Many thousands of people would not be alive today if it were not for the heroic efforts of these men and women. In one of the country's darkest hours, they kept faith with their colleagues, with those in need, and with their country. Our Nation's founders were deeply committed to the idea that the individual had an obligation to serve the community. The Nation's first responders live this ideal every day. They lived it again on September 11, and because they did, they gave their lives. While we have cause to mourn these deaths, we should also celebrate the values their lives exhibited, values that represent the very best of America. We have suffered a grievous loss. But the wonderful thing about America is that we will bounce back. For every firefighter who fell on September 11, someone else will take his place. For every emergency responder who paid with his life, another will emerge. For every police and port authority officer who fell in the line of duty, another citizen will answer the call. That is the American way. On September 11, the Nation's firefighters showed the world what courage means. If we expect the fire services--many of whom depend on volunteers--to deal with terrorist attacks, we have a responsibility to provide them with the help they need so that they can continue to protect lives and property. Madam Speaker, as a member of the conference on the defense authorization bill, I will be pushing for a large increase in the authorized funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program to $1 billion for each fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the families of the fallen heroes to whom we owe so much. God bless those who have died, God bless their families, and God bless America.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a poem written by Sarah Shaw for her Jerome, Michigan, church service, September 30, 2001. A Prayer for My Country It's utter terror--disbelief, at what my eyes behold. It's so unbelievable, as I watch this scene unfold. Where three years ago I'd been there, and had marvelled at the sight. The majestic New York City skyline, all lit up by night. Now horror, seeing attacks, watching both towers aflame Saw the huge plane flying, as for its attack it came With total disbelief I stood, staring at my T.V. This cannot be happening!! This cannot truly be!! But it was real indeed, the U.S.A. had been attacked! So our nation plunged into war--it's a deadly fact. The scene was there before me, the story slowly revealed. For the passengers in four hi-jacked planes--their doom was sealed. The hi-jackers were so full of hate flying through the sky, Their aim to ``kill America'' to do so they would die. Two of the planes hit both twin towers squarely--all aflame. One plane to the Capital, the Pentagon, was its aim. The last plane met resistance from some passengers, so brave, A Pennsylvania mountain became its deadly grave. So the tale of this tragedy spread across our Nation, Dazed people unable to believe this revelation. How could it be? How can lives be changed in just a moment? How could anyone hate like that? With so much vengeance vent? But it was real indeed, the U.S.A. had been attacked, Our Nation plunged into a war, it was a deadly fact. Through the days that followed, found me glued to my T.V. set, This tragedy consumed me, I felt so helpless--and yet My deep desire was to be a part of the rescue teams, Then I could go into combat against those evil schemes, Of those who brought destruction, who had attacked our Nation. Since I could not go, I'm left with sadness and frustration. The scene was utter destruction, the question, where to start? Many rescue workers poured in, coming to do their part. Firemen and police men, skilled workers with their big machines. Doctors and nurses and ambulances, also on the scene. All working tirelessly, upon this mountain of debris. How frantically they struggled, to find victims to set free. Then new disaster, damaged buildings suddenly collapsed, The rescue teams became the victims, as many were trapped. Rescuers continued working, they knew they must go on. The missing, numbered thousands, so they searched from dawn to dawn. Our Nation now in mourning, candles lit across the land. Our red, white and blue flags waving, many in childrens hands. At Washington Cathedral, folks of all creeds gathered there. Joining our President and Congress, in a time of prayer. Also at this service, four past Presidents of our Nation, With all heads bowed, aching hearts, seeking God's affirmation. In churches, and in town halls, in parks all across our land. Prayers of every creed and language, God will understand. So now in our sorrow, we must all turn to God above, May he surround our Nation with his everlasting love! Amen.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Hopefully we are not going to bump up against this limit, because it is going to be very complicated however we do it, if we bump against a WTO provision that says we have got to pay back and somehow reduce the subsidies that have already gone out. So hopefully that is not going to occur in the way we finally draft the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this relates to the amendment that I had yesterday in terms of giving a greater advantage to the average, the medium-sized farmer, giving a lesser advantage to the very large farms in the country. This amendment relates to a WTO decision that might come, saying that the United States is going to have to reduce its subsidies for agricultural production. In the event that WTO makes that decision, the existing language in the bill has provisions where there would be an across-the-board reduction. My amendment says that the first reductions would come from those farmers receiving more than $150,000 in price support benefit payments. The provisions of the amendment yesterday was scored to save the government $1.31 billion if we had a real limitation of $150,000 on the particular payments that go out to farmers for price supports. I think as we proceed with this bill, as we move ahead to where we are going with agricultural policy in the future, somehow we need a policy that is going to help the farmers that need the help the most. I think it is unconscionable that we continue to give million-dollar awards. There are 152 farmers in the United States that received over $1 million in benefits. I think we need to continue to look at policies that are, number one, going to be market-oriented, number two, not to encourage increased production, and, number three, be fair to most all the farmers in the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. You are going to have to do that, anyway.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is generally agreed that the 21st century brings with it a new era of biological sciences, with the advances in molecular biology and biotechnology that promises longer, healthier lives and the effective control, perhaps elimination of a host of acute and chronic diseases. Right now we have the best safeguards in the world in testing any new food product. The biotechnological development of new plants that is achieved through this new technology is more safe (according to witnesses testifying at five hearings I have had now in my Subcommittee on Research) more safe than the traditional cross-breeding or hybrid breeding of plants. Most everything that we eat now, and buy at the grocery store, has been genetically modified. The genetic modification has been accomplished by crossing one plant with another. With maybe 25 to 30,000 genes in a typical plant crossed with another plant, not knowing what the end result is going to be is potentially more dangerous than using the new technology. With the new biotechnology, we have the ability to identify particular genes and the folding of proteins related to those genes to help assure that the resulting product is going to be safe. In addition to that, we have the best regulatory safeguards anywhere in the world, with USDA, with the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency all looking into safeguarding these new plant and food products. I would hope we would not support any suggestion that is going to reduce the scientific effort to achieve the kind of new food and feed products that we need in this country and that have the potential of being helpful to third world countries and a hungry world. The kind of food products that could, for example, grow in the arid soils where they were not able to grow in the past; food products that provide vaccines or important vitamins and nutrients.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the gentleman from Ohio and I have talked and we both agree that we need to review this kind of biotech research in such a way that it is going to assure food safety, and that we need to have the kind of new research that is going to make sure that not only can we convince the American people, but we are in a better position to convince Europe and Japan and the rest of the world. In my three hearings that I have held on biotech, we do not want to diminish our review of the normal cross-breeding of the products that we get, but I think it is important that we move ahead with greater assurance. So I support the amendment at 3 percent, and USDA can accommodate some place between 2.5 and 3 percent.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, we took up the agricultural bill yesterday. We are going to do that again today. I think one area that we might want to reconsider looking at once this gets to conference or maybe even amendments today is an issue that relates to terrorism, and that is, our potential worst problem that we have in this country is the food inspection system. Tommy Thompson reports that they have 750 agents looking at 130 points of entry, 55,000 places around America. Agriculture has thousands of inspectors compared to their 750. I think it is reasonable that we consider and talk about the possibility that those inspections in agriculture that are just looking for what is allowed into this country or maybe some insects need to team up and have a greater ability to add to the energy of HEW in terms of the food health inspection. To assure credibility and integrity, I would ask that the two statements opposing and supporting my amendment yesterday also be entered into the Record at this point. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 3, 2001. ``There's a lot of medium-sized farmers that need help, and one of the things that we're going to make sure of as we restructure the farm program next year is that the money goes to the people it's meant to help.''--President George W. Bush, August, 2001 Dear Colleague: 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 or financial need. Often in our rush to provide support for struggling farmers we overlook just where that support is going: This amendment only limits price supports, not AMTA, conservation, or any other type of farm payment. The largest 18 percent of farms receive 74 percent of federal farm program payments. In 1999, 47 percent of farm payments went to large commercial farms, which had an average household income of $135,000. The bulk of benefits over $150 thousand paid out on the 2000 harvest went to cotton and rice farmers--in fact, two large rice cooperatives in Arkansas collected nearly $150 million between them. Unlimited government price supports for program commodities disproportionately skews federal farm aid to the largest of producers while encouraging overproduction and allowing the largest producers to become even larger. Let's do more to be fair to small and moderate size family farm operations by establishing meaningful, effective payment limitations. CBO Has Scored This Amendment as Saving $1.31 Billion! Support the Smith-Armey-Blumenauer-McInnis-Shays amendment on federal price support limitations Sincerely, Nick Smith, Member of Congress. Representative Smith states that his amendment will only affect the very largest of recipients. Mr. Smith is wrong. He claims that it would take 1,950 acres of cotton or 17,000 acres of rice to reach the payment limit he references. In reality, it would take 432 acres of cotton or 700 acres of rice. What the Smith amendment will do: Compromises the integrity of the agricultural marketing system; punishes medium-size farmers, the very ones he claims to be helping; adversely affects producers who use marketing certificates; and drastically reduces the effectiveness of the marketing loan Oppose the Nick Smith Amendment I would like to add that less than 1 percent of imported food is inspected and that there were over 76 thousand reported food poisoning last year. It is generally agreed that the 21st century brings with it a new era in the biological sciences with advances in molecular biology and biotechnology that promise longer, healthier lives and the effective control, perhaps elimination of a host of acute and chronic diseases. The prospects are bright but there is a dark side--the possibility that infectious agents might be developed and produced as offensive weapons; that new or emergent infections, like HIV/AIDS or old diseases or other pathogens need to be guarded against at our borders.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that what USDA suggests on implementing this amendment, it would be simply, instead of a nonrecourse loan that means you can forfeit, it would be a recourse loan. So you can still borrow the money, but eventually you will have to pay it back at the lower interest rate.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No, sir, this is a limit per individual producer. Excuse me.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. This would not touch that.