Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), we have a recourse loan program, so we do not glut the program, available to these farmers as a recourse loan. That means we do not have to sell the product at harvest time, so this does not diminish the effort we have made over the years to allow orderly marketing. It is still there. Let me also say that according to the Congressional Research Service, averaging the last 2 years, we would have had to have had 6,142 acres of corn to reach the $150,000 limit; 6,600 acres of soybeans; 13,000 acres of wheat; 13,000 acres of sorghum; 1,951 acres of cotton; and 17,000 acres of rice. Prices vary over the years, so the acreage is going to vary over the years. These are all huge farmers. There are 80,000-acre landlords that are sucking in a lot of the benefits that could go to small farmers. Again, scored, this saves $1.3 billion. At a time when we are desperately looking for finance, at a time when we are desperately looking for fairness, I would ask my colleagues to consider something that takes the great advantage away from the big farmers, slows down the motivation of those big farmers to get even bigger, buying up the small farms. It is not the kind of farm policy we should have in the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I am a farmer. I have been involved in farm programs since the 1960s, and never has there been such a complete effort to get the input of American producers and those associated with agriculture into this final result, into this piece of legislation. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) held 47 field hearings across the United States, 10 of those were full committee hearings, in addition to the dozens of hearings held in Washington. We tried to come up with legislation that faces a predicament which is now confronting American agriculture. That predicament is: Do we let other countries subsidize their farmers to the extent that it puts our farmers out of business? Right now we are in competition, if you will, with countries like Europe, who subsidize their farmers five times as much as we subsidize our farmers. To project what happens with that kind of subsidy, their additional production goes into what would otherwise be our markets. It is not a good way to do business. The taxpayer, one way or the other, is going to end up paying more for their food supplies to keep farmers producing agricultural products. One way is through farm subsidies. That is what is happening in the United States. I mentioned Europe, five times the subsidies as the U.S. Members can compare that to countries like Japan, which goes up to almost 12 times in subsidies as we pay our farmers. Eventually there has to be a more market-oriented solution in all countries to let the buyers of those products pay for them at the marketplace rather than through tax dollars distributed through government programs that are ultimately going to be unfair. Mr. Chairman, look at this bill carefully and let us move ahead. For the time being, we have to keep American agriculture in place.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, each one of these individuals is eligible, if they go to the local FSA office, to be a separate producer entity, each available to that $150,000 limit.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important amendment if we are going to keep public support for agricultural programs. The amendment puts an absolute limit on all benefits derived from price support programs of the Federal Government. I am a farmer. I have spent time as chairman of the ASCS committee in Michigan administering farm programs. I help write them in Washington. If anybody has read the papers, they know that there have been many stories from AP and other news sources about the millions of dollars that are going to some of the big landowners. I think that we are hoodwinking the American people if we say that there is a limit of $150,000 in this case; and by the way, up until last year, the limit was only $75,000; but we now have a limit of $150,000. If you have a wife, you can go to the USDA office and have that spouse also included as an additional producer, making it $300,000. I think we are hoodwinking the American people if we lead them to believe that there is any limit on benefits that can be derived from Federal programs on price support. That is because in a rather complicated program, we have nonresource loans, which means that even if one does not get the marketing loan payment, even if one does not get the price support from a loan deficiency payment, one always has the opportunity of forfeiting a crop or, in many cases, the Government says instead of the forfeiture, we will give a certificate. So in reality, there is no limit. What we are faced with is people like NBA star Scotty Pippen, billionaire tycoon J.R. Simlot, and 20 Fortune 500 companies receiving Federal checks from the programs. The President, the administration said today, one problem he has with this farm bill, and allow me to read the statement that came out this morning from the statement of administration policy: ``This bill fails to help farmers most in need. While overall farm income is strengthening, there is no question that some of our Nation's producers are in serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and ranchers. Rather than address these unmet needs, H.R. 2646 would continue to direct the greatest share of resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share only 13 percent of the payments. H.R. 2646, without this amendment, would continue this disparity.'' I call on my colleagues to do something that helps farmers, and we help farmers because we are going to be inundated. Anybody that read the Wall Street Journal today knows that, again, they criticized this program because it goes to the big producers. Let me suggest to my colleagues why there is momentum to not have any limitations on price support benefits. It is because of the grain dealers, the grain deals, the car deals, the Purinas, the Archer Daniel Midlands. Every grain operator profits by their volume. They have so much income for every bushel, every hundred weight; and so there is that momentum, plus the huge farmers. We have an 80,000-, 130,000-acre farmer that controls 130,000 acres down in Florida where he lives, ended up with something way in excess of $1 million. Mr. Chairman, 154 recipients, in total, quoting the AP story, collected more than $1 million and wealthy recipients are doing it. We need to home in on this program. One way to do it is to say that there is going to be a real limit of $150,000 that includes not only the LDPs and the marketing loans, but also includes if you will, the end run that these huge landowners exercise to get benefits from forfeitures and so-called certificates. My amendment would save, according to the CBO, $1.2 billion in benefits, or what is the figure, $1.3 billion. So this amendment, by limiting it to these giant producers, saves $1.3 billion. The giant producers are located, many of them, in cotton farms in Texas, and of course, rice in Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a Dear Colleague letter on this matter. The document referred to is as follows: 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. Sincerely, Nick Smith, Member of Congress.

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

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. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from Texas it is the Congressional Budget Office.

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

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. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 42, which would require American flags on all federal office buildings to be lowered to half-staff in honor of the annual National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emittsburg, Maryland. H.J. Res. 42 recognizes the over 300 New York firefighters who gave their lives to save others during the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, more public safety officers were lost in the terrorist attack on the United States than any other single event in modern history. What happened at the World Trade Center will live in our memories forever. We can be proud that at a time of great peril, New York's firefighters answered the call. They conducted themselves with a selflessness and dedication that does credit to themselves, their city, and their country. This resolution also recognizes the heroic firefighters in every small town and suburb and big city across America who gave their lives. Last year in Michigan alone, four firefighters died in duty-related incidents. Each of these deaths is a tragedy for family, friends, and community. I will not forget their sacrifice, and neither will America. This resolution honors all those who gave their lives to protect their communities. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very much. Quite often, we in Congress get in partisan debates here, and are, in effect, sort of in a shell. But on this CODEL, 11 Members of Congress broke out of that shell and went on a CODEL to other parts of the world that was totally bipartisan, probably the most effective trip that I have ever taken. For the record, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), allow me to read in the Members that went on that CODEL. Of course, the chairman of the CODEL was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). The cochairman was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), a Democrat. Other Members were the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), a Democrat; the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a Republican; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a Republican; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a Democrat; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), a Republican; myself, from Michigan; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a Democrat; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns), a Republican; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), a Republican. Sometimes when legislators go and meet with legislators from other countries, the discussion back and forth is more frank than it is sometimes with the bureaucrats, with the diplomats, who have a more formal agenda. So some of the debate and the discussion and some of the criticism of the United States for things that it might have done in the past I think were more readily outcoming to end up not only with a frank discussion, but with actual friendship of these legislators in these other countries. So I think some of the information that we have garnered is going to be the information that the State Department needs to have, as well as the President of the United States. I saw somewhat of a welcoming by these other countries that have experienced terrorism, that finally the United States is taking it seriously enough to help them do something. Our briefings in Russia were excellent. Our briefings in Italy were excellent, but let me just read a couple paragraphs out of several good briefings that we had in Turkey. And they gave us several booklets on terror because they have been studying and putting up with terror for a long time. I think it was about eight different terrorists groups. The PKK was one of these groups and the introduction to this book on terrorism or the PKK says, this booklet provides a detailed account of some of the terrorist attacks perpetrated in Turkey by the PKK, which is the Kurdish acronym for the Kurdistan Workers Party, one of the most brutal terror organizations in the world, both in terms of number of the victims of its terror acts. By the way, these acts have been committed, and they go on to say, as a result of the indiscriminate terrorist attack of the PKK, over 30,000 Turkish citizens have lost their lives since 1984, and among these were thousands of innocent victims that included women and children and the elderly and infants. We learned that the terrorist organizations are organized throughout the world and the training of these terrorists often begins with orphans that are then taken in by the terrorist groups and started to be indoctrinated into the religion and they are indoctrinated and brainwashed, if you will, not just over a short time period but a longer time period. So what we are dealing with is individuals that have been so indoctrinated over their young lives that it is going to be very difficult to indoctrinate them the other way around. So the question becomes not only what do we with bin Laden, what do we do with other terrorist leaders, what do we do with all these other individuals that have been so trained that their main goal in life is to get rid of the predicament they are in and cause these murders of people that have that same understanding of democracies that we have in the United States. It is going to be a huge challenge, but one thing we gain from these meetings in other countries is that other countries are willing to help us. One of their questions was are we going to have the will power, the, if you will, intestinal fortitude in the United States to continue this fight against terrorism, not for just months but possibly for years, possibly for a generation if we are going to be successful because the total economic well-being of all of these citizens of the world depend, I think, on our success in this particular battle against terrorism. And with that I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his leadership on this trip.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be taking up the agricultural bill for agricultural programs for the next 10 years. Farmers are in a predicament right now in terms of low commodity prices. In fact, some of those commodity prices are the lowest they have been in 20 years. So we are seeing a lot of farmers go out of business, go into bankruptcy, especially because the land value for recreational use, for use by people that want a country estate, is bidding up those land values far more than can be accommodated by current commodity prices for those farm products those farmers are producing. The question this Nation is facing is do we want to maintain a strong agricultural industry in the United States so that we do not have to be dependent on importing our foodstuffs, our feed, our food, like, for example, we have in energy. We have increased our dependence on petroleum energy to the extent that if OPEC and those countries that send petroleum energy to this country decided to cut off that available supply, we would at least temporarily see our economy collapse, because right now, we are importing almost 58 percent of our total energy supplies. I think it is important that we do not let that happen to agriculture. Tomorrow, I have an amendment on the agricultural bill that I think will reduce some of the criticism that some Members in this Chamber have of the agricultural farm programs and the payments, Federal payments, the subsidy payments that are made to agriculture. That amendment puts a real limit on how much any one farmer can receive from Federal Government programs in terms of price-support subsidy. Right now, the limit for price supports is said to be $150,000 per year per farmer. Actually, it is a hoodwinking to suggest that there is a limit, a real limit of $150,000, because what we have in farm programs, and it is somewhat complex, but in price supports, there are four ways that a farmer can achieve the benefits of the price-support program: one is loan deficiency payments; the second is marketing loans; the third is derived from a nonrecourse where the farmer can take out a loan on the commodity and give the Government title to that commodity and receive the same benefits as if they were getting an LDP or a marketing loan. So what they do is an end run, if you will, around the $150,000 limitation, and that $150,000 limitation is reasonable in terms of the acreage that any normal family farm in this country produces. Let me give my colleagues an example. The average farm in this country is approximately 500 acres in size; but $150,000, based on the last 2 years, one would need to have 6,000 acres of corn, 6,200 acres of soybeans, and 17,000 acres of cotton and, likewise, 1,300 acres of rice to accommodate that limitation of $150,000. Yet, our technical language of this farm bill that we will be taking up tomorrow says any farmer that is big enough, and there are 30,000-, 40,000-, 80,000-acre farms; in fact, in Florida, there is one landowner that owns 130,000 acres, receiving over $1 million in government benefits. My amendment that I hope this body will consider tomorrow sets a real limit by saying it is not only loan deficiency payments and marketing loans, but it includes limitations on the benefits from certificates and forfeitures from that nonrecourse loan. It is reasonable. It saves, according to the CBO, $520 million over the life of this farm program. That money would be better spent with the kind of farmers that need the help most, and that is the average family farm in this country. Support a Reasonable Limit on Farm Price Support Payments (The Associated Press reported recently that over 154 individuals received more than $1 million in farm aid last year! Limit massive government payments to the largest recipients--Vote for the Smith/ Clayton/Holden/Armey/Shays/McInnis payment limitation amendment to the Farm Bill!) Dear Colleague: Over the years, Congress has established caps on the amount of money a producer can receive from federal farm program price supports. Unfortunately, these payment ``limits'' on loan deficiency payments, LDPs, have easily been avoided by the unlimited use of commodity certificates, which give the farmer the same dollar benefit as an LDP. In fact, a CRS report on commodity certificates stated that, ``while purported to discourage commodity forfeitures, certificates effectively serve to circumvent the payment limitation.'' (CRS Report 98-744 ENR) My amendment would establish a REAL PAYMENT CAP by including commodity certificates among the methods of price support that are limited. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this amendment as saving $528 million over the life of the Farm Bill. The limitation in this amendment will only affect the very largest of recipients. For instance, the average acreage it would have taken to reach this limit in the last two crop years was over 6,000 acres of corn and soybeans, 1,950 acres of cotton, and 13,000 acres of wheat and 17,000 acres of rice! Note: The average U.S. farm size is 450 acres. The Bush Administration recently released a report, Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century, that clearly refers to the flaws with current farm price supports, stating, ``Past attempts at tailoring or directing benefits to particular groups have not proved very successful . . . payment limits to individual farmers have not proved effective.'' This is because of the loophole allowing farmers to keep the equivalent loan benefit and forfeit the crop. Difficult future budget decisions, coupled with the increased press scrutiny of farm price support programs, may threaten to reduce the continued strong public support for American agriculture. Setting a real limit on farm payments will help to maintain this support, and save taxpayers $528 million dollars! Please consider cosponsoring and speaking in favor of this amendment on behalf of the American family farmer. Sincerely, Nick Smith, Member of Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. speaker, on September 11th, America came face to face with undisguised evil. We did not blink. What the enemies of America perceive as weakness, we celebrate as strength--freedom, tolerance, democratic governance. No enemy can ever take these things from us, because they are ingrained in our institutions, our way of life, and our very character as a people. In times of trial, these principles give America the strength and resolve to meet any challenge, no matter how great. We will rise to this challenge as we have done countless times before. As we mourn our dead, we prepare for war. Americans are people of goodwill. We do not seek war, and waging war is something we do neither with relish nor with joy. But wage war we must, with all the ferocity and all the commitment of a Nation roused to righteous anger. Whether it takes weeks, months, or years, we will prevail. To those who have spilled the blood of American innocents, and those who have harbored them, our message is a simple one: You can run, but you can't hide. America will track you down, and for what you have done, you will pay. You will pay. God bless this House, and God bless America.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the comments of my Chief of Staff, Kurt Schwartz, which reflects the feelings of many Americans in reacting to the terrorist attack. ``Will we forget? Will the sick, sinking feeling fade? Will we once again fail to follow through on fine words and dramatic promises? Or will ``Remember the Trade Center'' replace ``Remember Pearl Harbor?'' Will we act with resolve, or will we do too little? As Margaret Thatcher noted at another time of crisis, ``This is no time to go wobbly.'' We have implacable enemies. We must deal with them implacably. They do not hesitate to spill blood, including their own. We must not hesitate to return their wrath. Anything else is futile. Democracy is self-absorbed, and can underestimate threats from abroad. But it can also rouse itself to righteous anger in crisis. Our duty is to direct that anger, give it purpose, use it to defend democracy and freedom. Before forgetfulness seeps in.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, H.R. 2882. The Nation's first responders--the firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and police--are the first to arrive at the scene, and the last to leave. As the Nation mourns the deaths of hundreds, and probably thousands, of our fellow citizens, as we take stock of the destruction caused by Tuesday's terrorist attacks, we should also pause for a moment to reflect on the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day, in every small town and suburb and big city across the country. In passing H.R. 2882, we help ease the burden the families of these fallen heroes deserve. These brave men and women gave their lives in the line of duty in one of the most tragic events in our Nation's history. It has been reported that over 250 New York firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and police officers may have perished at the World Trade Center. We cannot bring these people back, but we can ensure that those who survive them do not have to endure excessive paperwork to receive the benefits they deserve through the selflessness and sacrifice of their loved ones. Many people would not be alive today if it were not for the bravery and sacrifice of these first responders. In one of the country's darkest hours, they kept faith with their colleagues, with those in need, with their country, and for that they paid the ultimate price. We have an obligation to ensure that their families get the support they need, and quickly, so that they can pick up the threads of their lives. The Nation's first responders represent the very best of America, and we owe them and their families a debt of profound gratitude. Passing H.R. 2882 is the least we can do to bring some comfort to the families of these fallen heroes. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, yesterday America came face-to- face with undisguised evil, an evil so profound that it leaves men and women of good will dumbfounded. These acts of war may have bloodied America, but America will remain unbowed. The enemies of America, I think, have always underestimated us; but in fact what these terrorists perceive as America's weakness, our freedom, our tolerance, our democratic system, is what gives America its strength. We will rise to this challenge. I urge for starters that we authorize the President to spend as he sees fit $20 billion to react to this attack. As we mourn our dead and injured, we will prepare for war; a war that we did not seek, but one that we must wage. And it is not a precedent. In the 18th century, Congress, under Jefferson, waged a war on the Barbary pirates. We must declare war on these new terrorists. Americans are not by nature a vengeful people, but when roused to anger in a righteous cause, our fury and our resolve will not be extinguished until our enemies are brought to justice. To those who celebrate the death of American innocents, of mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, I have a simple message: you can run, but you cannot hide. America will deliver a response at the time and place of its own choosing to the perpetrators and those that shield them.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my office manager, Mary Christ, noted the following that I want to share with my colleagues. And I quote: Suddenly, we are living in a new world. This attack on the United States is worse than the Pearl Harbor of the past. Then, a known enemy struck at a far-away naval base. Now, an unclear enemy has struck against the heart of the nation. Innocent civilians were turned into weapons, and innocent civilians were the targets and the victims. It was unspeakable brutality and terror. It could not have been worse. This was the day we will all remember. This was the day the world changed. For 10 years, we have been living in the optimism after the fall of the Evil Empire and a new freedom around the world. Now, a new Evil has struck. A new war will be waged across world. It will never be the same. Thank you Mary!

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my good friend.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we have talked and dedicated ourselves to making sure that we identify and capture the perpetrators, that these atrocities cannot be tolerated in a free society, and that for the sake of not only America but for the rest of the world, we need to be very aggressive and dedicated in the effort that we are about to undertake. Also, as chairman of the committee that oversees the Federal Fire Administration, I would like to take a moment to speak about the Nation's first responders, the firefighters, the emergency medical personnel, the police who were first to arrive at the scene and certainly the last to leave such a scene in situations as happened at the Pentagon and in New York and also south of Pittsburgh. As the Nation mourns the deaths of hundreds and probably many thousands of our fellow citizens, as we take stock of the destruction caused by yesterday's terrorist attacks, we should also pause for a moment to reflect on the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day in every small town and suburb and every big city across the country. We have all been deeply moved by the tragic scenes at the Pentagon, Pennsylvania, and especially New York. But we can be proud that in a time of great peril, the Nation's first responders answered the call, conducting themselves with bravery, with dedication that does credit to themselves, their city, and their country. It has been reported that over 202 New York firefighters and 57 police officers may have perished at the World Trade Center, a tragic loss. Witnesses said that as they were running down the stairs to escape the burning building, they passed New York firefighters running up those stairs to put out fires and to assist other people stuck on higher floors. Just imagine that for a moment. With fire and smoke all around, with a 110-story building buckling from intense heat, these firefighters ignored their own safety to help people they did not know but who were in great need of help, their help. Under such horrible conditions, who could have blamed them for abandoning the burning building? But instead of turning their backs on people in need, they faced the danger head-on because that is their job. We may never know how many lives they saved, but we do know that many people would not be alive today but for the bravery and sacrifice of these dedicated men and women. Their deaths cannot be in vain. We have an obligation to ensure that they get the support they need, God forbid, should they be called on again to deal with a terrorist attack. They represent the very best of America, and our Nation owes them and their families a debt of profound gratitude. We in this House and across America mourn for these heroes and we pray for their families. We cannot bring them back but we can promise their loved-ones this: The terrorists who were responsible for these depraved acts will pay for them. They can run, but then cannot hide. And they will pay.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Today, the Nation imports an estimated 56 percent of our petroleum energy, and we are more dependent on foreign sources of oil than ever before. Relying on foreign sources of oil is a national security issue of the greatest importance. This bill allows oil development within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Opponents of this provision are concerned about the impact it will have on a pristine area. Nevertheless, the imperatives of the Nation's energy situation dictates that we must seek new sources of domestic energy production, including oil. This amendment would set aside no more than 2,000 acres of ANWR to oil development. This is about the area that would be needed to tap oil resources located there, potentially tens of billions of barrels. This area represents about one hundredth of one percent of the land area in ANWR--about the area of medium-sized farm. This seems to me to be a reasonable and responsible compromise. It would shut off the vast majority of ANWR from development while at the same time allowing oil development to move ahead on a very small portion of land. Developing 2,000 acres, an area less then two miles square of ANWR vast area would improve America's energy security while leaving the remainder of the refuge untouched. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I just met with Spencer Abraham, the new Secretary of Energy, and certainly I rise in support of this amendment. America has abundant reserves of coal, enough for hundreds of years, and so we need to figure out how to tap into this resource in the way that protects our environment and keeps energy affordable. In my home State of Michigan, we are now generating 80 percent of our electricity supply from coal. Coal has many benefits, but it also has environmental drawbacks. And that is why the Clean Coal Technology Program in our efforts to move ahead on this effort is so very important. The gentlewoman's amendment would simply ensure that the Department of Energy include the research as part of its clean coal portfolio. I see nothing objectionable from anybody, and I certainly support that effort because that technology is so important.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment points to a problem that is not unique to California, but affects the entire country. The fact is that with improved engine, emissions, and refining technologies, the requirements of the Clean Air Act can be met without the need to dictate specific fuel formulas. Yet today we have a patchwork of regulations governing what specific fuel formulation can be sold in what area of the country. These rules have raised costs and contributed to supply disruptions. We should adopt fuel performance standards, not specific fuel formulations, to meet emissions reduction targets. But these performance standards should apply in the entire country, not just California. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, I am excited about this amendment. This fund could provide additional billions of dollars on top of the already existing funding for renewable energy research and development. The renewable energy technology investment fund will fund additional renewable energy research and development into renewable and alternative fuels, including wind, solar, geothermal, energy from biomass. Using the revenues from ANWR, leasing for these purposes would pay permanent dividends to the American people by lowering the cost of developing renewable energy resources. It is going to restore and protect wildlife habitat on public lands. It is an amazing return on investment, and by allowing for the wise and prudent development of just 2,000 acres in a remote area of Alaska previously set aside for this specific purpose, we can produce benefits for generations to come. It is the wise use of our public lands that our children and grandchildren will thank us for. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Sununu amendment.