Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, for two reasons, what the chairman says is correct. The increased tax on Social Security benefits passed in 1993 was for the purpose of reducing deficit spending, even though the money of the tax was earmarked for Medicare. As far as its justification for deficit reduction, it is appropriate that we repeal this tax increase. We are now experiencing huge surpluses and make up that money to Medicare. Therefore, to continue to justify this tax for deficit reduction is not appropriate. Let me offer another reason why it is appropriate to reduce this tax. Higher-income retirees tend to be workers who paid in more Social Security taxes than lower-wage earners; and because the Social Security system is so progressive, higher-income wage earners already receive a much smaller percentage of what they paid in in terms of the benefits they receive. It is not fair in a relative sense that they be additionally penalized by this tax. Now, it is my opinion that eventually, as we lower the tax rate overall, as suggested by Governor Bush, we should tax Social Security benefits the way we tax private pensions. We now tax private pensions, but we only tax the value of the employer's contribution plus total interest as a percentage of the whole. We do not tax the recipient's contribution. That amount in a typical Social Security pension received from high wage earners is 15 percent. In contrast, an average low wage earner retiree has already received in benefits about seven times his or her after-tax contribution. So our goal should be to lower the tax overall and to treat those higher-income recipients that are already in a progressive state at a fair tax level related to the lower tax level.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this week the House of Representatives is expected to be voting on a bill, H.R. 4844, the Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation has been advertised as a historic agreement that is overwhelmingly supported by both rail management and labor. Why have they agreed so easily? The answer is because American taxpayers rather then the private railroad companies are going to be footing the bill for their private pension fund. Let me talk about the facts of this railroad retirement bill. The railroad retirement system already has an unfunded liability of $39.7 billion, according to our Committee on the Budget staff. The industry would need to increase contributions from 21 percent of wages to 31 percent of wages for the next 30 years to cover this shortfall. Accurate accounting shows that the industry has received at least $85 billion more in benefits than it has paid in contributions. The rail industry has for many years received special government subsidies that are available to no other industry. Under current law, income taxes paid by rail retirees do not go to U.S. Treasury. They are instead transferred to the Railroad Retirement System, costing taxpayers over $5 billion. The government also currently pays the cost of Amtrak's social security contributions, costing taxpayers another $150 million a year. Now this plan, H.R. 4844, would reduce both employer and employee contributions to the retirement fund. Let me say that again. They are going to reduce both employee and employer contributions to the retirement fund while providing substantial increases in benefits, so they reduce the contribution, they increase benefits, and they charge the American taxpayers for these private business pension plans. Specifically, the bill will, number one, repeal a 26.5 cent per hour employer contribution for supplemental annuities; two, it will reduce employer contributions from the current 16.1 percent to 14.2 percent in the year 2002; three, it will expand benefits for widows; four, it will reduce the vesting requirement from 10 to 5 years; five, it will repeal the current cap on payments of earned benefits; six, it is going to reduce the minimum retirement age to 60. This legislation fails to move to a privatized retirement system. It reduces contributions of the employee and employer and while substantially increasing benefits. It is going to cost the taxpayers of the country huge amounts to subsidize these kinds of pension plans for private sector business. The bill as written should not be passed.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2000 the Village of Athens will celebrate its heritage and the new millennium during Homecoming 2000 activities. As part of the celebration, the community will honor Curtis J. Knowles with the Bob Ling Memorial Service Award. Born and raised in Hillsdale County, Michigan, Curt and I attended Addison High School and Pilgrim Fellowship at Somerset Congregational Church together. Curt attended Michigan State University and Hillsdale College, graduating in 1961. While in school, he and his father started the Knowles Excavating Company and did much work throughout southern Michigan. Curt moved with his family to Athens in 1966 where he began teaching and coaching. He served as the head boys' basketball coach until being named athletic director in 1975. In addition to boys' athletics, Curt coached Athens area girls softball from 1979 to 1994. He was elected president of the Athletic Boosters Club in 1978 and held that post until he retired from teaching in 1996. Curt joined the Athens Improvement Association in 1974 and has worked tirelessly for the betterment of the community through numerous projects, including serving as the annual homecoming parade announcer for the past 23 years. Curt is well known for his upbeat attitude and wonderful sense of humor. Regardless of the occasion, he always has a funny or interesting story to share. In his retirement, Curt has returned to his roots, rejoining the family excavating business in partnership with his son John. The strength of communities like Athens lies in the many dedicated citizens who give selflessly of their time and talents to enhance the quality of life for those around them. Curt Knowles has always been one of these exemplary citizens. I am proud to call Curt a lifelong friend and join with the citizens of Athens in thanking him for his many years of service to the community and congratulating his on this well deserved honor.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 415 I put my card in the voting box but it failed to register. I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is the best of times and the worst of times. In 1993, it was somewhat the worst situation in this country in terms of overspending and debt. We had a $250 billion deficit every year, as far as the budgeters could project. Earlier this year in January, CBO and OMB predicted there was going to be a $26 billion on-budget surplus next year--a $28 billion surplus this year. Yesterday, they predicted a tremendous increase in tax revenues, almost three times the amount in terms of on-budget surplus this year for an estimated $84 billion. Next year, they are projecting $102 billion surplus. Our economy has been growing now for 18 years--steadily for the last 10 years. But remember, back in 1993 the Clinton administration and the Democrats made a decision that we should increase taxes in order to have deficit reduction. They passed the largest tax increase in history, $250 billion. As it turned out, half of that money was used to expand domestic social program spending. The other half used to reduce borrowing. If the goal of that huge tax increase was to have a smaller deficit and now we are looking at a projection of $4.6 trillion to $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years with the unified budget, it is time to give back some of that tax increase. Let us reduce that 4.3 cent gas tax increase passed. Let us rescind and reduce the extra Social Security tax that was also part of that 1993 tax increase. And of course the President pushed for and got an increase in the income tax going to a new top rate of 39.6 percent, increased the death tax, and increased the payroll tax on workers. It could help make this the best of times for the American people during these times of huge surpluses, by repealing some of those tax increases that the other side of the aisle along with Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore got passed in 1993.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I am excited about this, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the chairman if he would consider looking at the Senate language in this amendment and consider the potential and the appropriateness of moving ahead in this area of doing something in the area of biotechnology.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I think is tremendously exciting in terms of the potential to help developing nations of the world in two areas: food production and health. This amendment sets aside $30 million for plant biotechnology research and development. Its language reflects language put in the Senate bill by Senator Bond of Missouri. It is technology aimed at solving the health and humanitarian and environmental challenges, particularly in the developing world. Indeed, the fruits of this research promise to address some of the most serious challenges faced there: hunger, malnutrition, drought, pestilence, and disease. Can we imagine if we develop a kind of plant that can now grow in those arid soils where food cannot be grown at the present time. Since we first cultivated about 10,000 years ago, mankind has searched for ways to improve them. Traditional selection and cross- breeding has been very useful in improving crop plants, but this is a time-consuming process that commonly produces unwanted traits that must be eliminated. We now have over 1,000 biotech products on the market. With the development of biotechnology, plant breeders are now able to develop new varieties of plants in a level of precision and range unheard of just 2 decades ago. The potential benefits to mankind are limited only by the resourcefulness of our scientists. Just today, it was announced that genes are the major cause of cancer, breast cancer and colon cancer. U.S. farmers, of course, have been quick to adopt the plants modified by biotechnology, and it is also spreading around the world. But as great as the potential of biotechnology here in the United States is, it holds even greater promise to solve many intractable problems facing farmers and hungry people, consumers in the developing world. Improved crop plants promise to mitigate common agricultural problems in much of the developing world through weather, pest and drought resistance, improved nutrition, and higher yields. On April 13, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, I issued a report on the benefits of safety and oversight of regulation, Seeds of Opportunity, a large section of which is devoted to a discussion of the potential benefits of this technology in improving nutrition, health, and feeding a growing worldwide population. A white paper issued just yesterday, a white paper was issued by the National Academy of Sciences, joined by the Royal Society of London, the Brazilian, Chinese, Indian, Mexican, and Third World Academies of Science put the situation plainly, and I quote: ``Today there are some 800 million people who do not have access to sufficient food to meet their needs. Malnutrition plays a significant role in half of the nearly 12 million deaths each year of children under 5 in developing countries.'' Still quoting, ``In addition to lack of food, deficiencies in micro- nutrients, especially vitamin A, iodine and iron, are widespread.'' They conclude that agricultural biotechnology research and development should be aggressively pursued, and I quote again, ``to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for people and farmers around the world.'' Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude. I am excited about this. I think agricultural biotechnology and gene technology offer tremendous opportunities, only limited by the creativity and funding for research dollars. It can play a major role in helping developing countries become self- sufficient in food production. One example of its promise is the development of a new strain of rice. It is called golden rice. It contains both beta carotene and iron, and work is underway to get this new variety to the field. The merging of medical and agricultural biotechnology has opened up new ways to develop plant varieties with characteristics to enhance health. It was announced today that this kind of gene research has huge potential in the developing world. Researchers are now working on developing plants that will develop medicines and edible vaccines through common foods that could be used to immunize the kids around the world. This is significantly important. Point of Order

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio which would mandate labeling of foods derived from biotechnology. The amendment which purports to strengthen consumer choice is not only out of order but actually limits consumer choice. I say that based on a couple of realities. One, that the labeling in Europe has resulted in stores taking these foods off the shelf and off the counter because of the potential fear that something must be wrong with these foods if they do label. It establishes an unnecessary warning, I think of little relevance to the public, about food products that three U.S. regulatory agencies, dozens of scientific societies, and literally thousands of researchers have found just as safe and maybe safer than essentially all the food we eat. Except for a couple of fish products, everything in that grocery store has been genetically modified, genetically modified by crossbreeding, hybrid breeding. Sometimes that kind of breeding has resulted in greater danger to the public than a more sophisticated high-tech ability to separate out one or two genes, knowing the characteristics of those genes, and then transplanting those genes. Rather than the average agricultural plant that has up to 25,000 genes, when you crossbreed them, you do not know what genes are going to dominate, you do not know what kind of genes are going to be mutated. So the new technology in the minds of many scientists is much safer. I think it is important that we do not inhibit the sale and production of these foods. We already have 1,000 products genetically modified, approved, that are on the market. We have three regulatory agencies overseeing it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, which would mandate labeling of foods derived from biotechnology. The amendment, which purports to strengthen consumer choice, not only is out of order but in reality it limits consumer choice. It is an attack on food products produced with the new technology. It establishes an unnecessary warning of little relevance to the public about food products that three U.S. regulatory agencies, dozens of scientific societies, and literally thousands of researchers have found just as safe--and maybe safer--than essentially all foods we eat. Most everything in the grocery store has been produced using gene transfer by traditional crossbreeding methods. It is therefore crucial that we not reduce efforts in our regulatory agencies to assure that all foods are safe which is compromised when we pay special attention to a particular category of food. On April 13, 2000, I issued a Chairman's report on plant genomics and agricultural biotechnology. This report was the culmination of three hearings I held on the issue as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, at which some of the Nation's leading scientists testified. One of the issues I dealt with in some detail in the report was mandatory labeling. What I found is that there is no scientific justification for labeling foods based on the method by which they are produced. Labeling of agricultural biotechnology products would confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading message on safety. The Food and Drug Administration has more than 15 years of experience in evaluating the food-based products of biotechnology and more than 20 years of experience with medical products of biotechnology. FDA's decision not to require labeling is consistent both with the law and with its ``Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties.'' More to the point, consumers have a lifetime of direct personal experience with foods genetically modified through hybridization and other means that are indistinguishable from those produced using biotechnology. FDA bases labeling decisions on whether there are material differences between the new plant-based food and its traditional counterpart. These material differences include changes in the new plant that are significant enough that the common or usual name of the plant no longer applies, or if a safety or usage issue exists that warrants consumer notification. Despite this sensible policy, biotechnology's critics continue to argue that foods created using recombinant DNA techniques should bear a label revealing that fact. This view is based on large part on the faulty supposition that the potential for unintended and undetected differences between these foods and those produced through conventional means is cause for a label based solely on the method of production of the plant. The risks for potentially unintended effects of agricultural biotechnology on the safety of new plant-based foods are conceptually no different than the risks for those plants derived from conventional breeding. As described in FDA's Statement of Policy, ``The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other food in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.'' This view was echoed by the research scientists who testified before the Subcommittee on the subject. Indeed, there is a genuine fear that labeling biotech foods based on their method of production would be the equivalent of a ``skull and crossbones''--that the very presence of a label would indicate to the average consumer that safety risks exist, when the scientific evidence shows that they do not. Labeling advocates who argue otherwise are being disingenuous. The United Kingdom's new mandatory labeling law, for example, was put forward ostensibly to enhance consumer choice. Instead, it has prompted British food producers and retailers to remove all recombinant DNA constituents from the products they sell to avoid labeling. Mr. Chairman, mandatory labels indicating the method of genetic manipulation clearly would be extremely confusing, and of little relevance, to consumers. FDA's current policy on labeling is scientifically and legally sound and should be maintained. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we face challenges in this country if we are to maintain a strong agricultural industry. The challenge right now is that other countries are doing better than we are helping their farmers. As much as this country works to operate this particular program of marketing help to get the word out of the quality of our products and the price of our products, our appropriations are flat and we are losing ground with other countries. For example, I would call to the attention for the gentleman from California that the European Union spends $92 million more than we do. Twice as much! The Cairns Group, countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Brazil and others spend $306 million more than we do. So imagine, not only are countries such as the E.U. spending more than the United States in their so-called MAP program, in their effort to enhance marketing and promote their farmers' products, they are subsidizing their farmers up to five times as much as we do. So on the one hand they are subsidizing their farmers to reduce the price they must charge for their exports and additionally they spend more on promotion--Huge competition for our American farmers, and in effect right now with the disastrous situation for farmers and ranchers in this country, it will put many of our farmers out of business. Again, not only are those countries subsidizing heavily to reduce their costs, but also they are spending much more than we are, double what we are, for example in Europe, to market their particular products at this lower subsidized price. We have to make a decision in this country whether we are going to keep a strong ag industry in the United States. I think we should! This amendment should be defeated. The export decline of the past several years has been harsh for America's farmers and ranchers, as well as for policy makers trying to address their concerns. While our export programs will never be a substitute for strong global markets and good agricultural policy we must ensure that the programs we administer are effective and efficient.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is rightly concerned about expenditures growing. I have mixed emotions on how to cut Federal spending. In this case, if I could call on the gentleman from California, I would inquire, does he have an idea of the millions of dollars that this is going to cut from some important programs. The answer is roughly $145 million. $145 million that is going to come out of the Food and Drug Administration, that is going to come from food safety programs, that is going to come out of reductions to the farm service agencies that already are having difficulty serving farmers like they should. All the regulations that we have developed in this country are now overwhelming those county offices. So I am particularly concerned about the ability of farmers to receive help in keeping up with all of the rules and the regulations. This amendment would cut other farmer assistance programs. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a serious situation where other countries of the world are helping and subsidizing their farmers 5 times as much as we are; for example, in Europe. So how, when they subsidize their farmers to that level, can we cut spending, even by the one percent suggested. We are going to have to make a decision. Do we want to keep agricultural production and the agriculture industry in this country alive and well, or are we going to let that industry fade. I say that we better think very carefully, not just this Congress, but the American people better think very carefully about whether we want to produce our own food and fiber in this country; whether we want to know that it is produced in a safe way; whether we want the freshness and reliable supply. In this case, I speak very strongly against the amendment. We do need to increase the efficiency of U.S. Department of Agriculture operations, however it is a disservice to farmers to take $145 million out of the discretionary spending of the agriculture budget.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the implications on research if this amendment passes. Scientific study and preliminary evidence show Mifepristone (RU-486) has significant promise for the treatment of: Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Cushing's Disease (a Pituitary Gland Disorder), Meningioma (benign brain tumors), and Ectopic Pregnancy. If we block the FDA from testing or approving mifepristone, we may be penalizing thousands of Americans who have nothing to do with the abortion issue. I feel this vote has greater ramifications than just abortion. I am also concerned about preserving the scientific integrity of the FDA's drug approval process.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we move ahead, that we give the assurance of safety. It has to be done. We cannot go ahead like Europe has gone ahead, based on unscientific evidence.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). Mr. Chairman, I would just like to call to the body's attention and to the attention of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that the Brazil nut gene within that soybean and its potential danger was discovered through premarket testing meeting the requirements of FDA and USDA. The product never got to market. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, because the mandate of food labeling which is part of the sponsor's goal, would send dangerous signals. Let me review a little bit of what we did in our Subcommittee on Basic Research. On April 13, I issued a chairman's report on plant genomics and agricultural biotechnology. This report was a culmination of three hearings that we held in Washington and meetings throughout the United States with scientists. The Subcommittee on Basic Research had some of the Nation's leading scientists testify, one of the issues that we dealt with in some detail in the report was the mandatory labeling provision. What we found is that there is no scientific justification for labeling food based on the method by which they are produced. Labeling of agricultural biotechnology products would, as suggested by the industry and by some of the scientists, confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading message on safety. The Food and Drug Administration has more than 15 years of experience in evaluating food-based products of biotechnology, more than 20 years of experience with medical products of biotechnology. FDA's decision not to require labeling is consistent both with the law and with FDA's ``statement of policy'' More to the point, consumers have a lifetime of direct personal experience with foods genetically modified through hybridization and cross breeding should have the same regulations scrutiny as those modified by the new technology. FDA bases labeling decisions on whether there are material differences between the new plant-based food and its traditional counterpart. These material differences include changes in the new plant that are significant enough that the common or usual name of the plant no longer applies or if the safety or use at issue exists that warrants consumer notification. Despite this sensible policy, biotechnology's critics including the sponsor of this amendment, continue to argue that foods created using recombinant DNA techniques should bear a label revealing that fact. This view is based, in large part, on the faulty supposition that the potential for unintended and undetected differences between these foods and those produced through conventional means is cause for a label based solely on the method of production of the plant. I would urge our three regulatory agencies that are overlooking, not only the biotech, but all products produced through traditional cross breeding, to thoroughly evaluate, all plants and seeds regardless of the process of development. Mr. Chairman, I mean we have had products developed through cross breeding that ended up poisonous. So the regulatory bodies that we have with USDA, Food and Drug, as well as EPA is the best in the world right now. They are doing a good job. What I am concerned with, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), because of emotion, and miss information, labeling is going to be like putting a skull and cross bones on the food product. If we were to define a biotech-produced food the way Food and Drug defines a biotech-produced food, then it would require labeling of everything except a few brands of fish. Essentially all food today has been genetically modified.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as well as the sponsors goal of mandatory labels would be extremely confusing, and of little relevance, or service to consumers. FDA's current policy on labeling has been scientifically and legally sound and should be maintained. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, which would mandate labeling of foods derived from biotechnology. Mr. Chairman, the risks for potentially unintended effects of agricultural biotechnology on the safety of new plant-based foods are conceptually no different than the risks for those plants derived from conventional breeding. As described in FDA's Statement of Policy, ``The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other food in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.'' This view was echoed by the research scientists who testified before the Subcommittee on the subject. Indeed, there is a genuine fear that labeling biotech foods based on their method of production would be the equivalent of a ``skull and crossbones''--that the very presence of a label would indicate to the average consumer that safety risks exist, when the scientific evidence shows that they do not. Labeling advocates who argue otherwise are being disingenuous. The United Kingdom's new mandatory labeling law, for example, was put forward ostensibly to enhance consumer choice. Instead, it has prompted British food producers and retailers to remove all recombinant DNA constituents from the products they sell to avoid labeling.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in light of the June 27, 2000 hearing on water pollution and the impact of EPA's proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rules on agriculture and silviculture, I would like to express my disappointment with the EPA approach to this problem and voice my support for Representative Berry's amendment to cut funding from the office of the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment. In recent years, public concerns about surface water contamination by nutrients, in particular nitrogen and phosphorus, has intensified as agricultural practices have been identified as a significant contributor to non-point source pollution. While we have made great progress in the past 30 years at cleaning up our waterways through addressing both point and non-point source pollution, much room for improvement still remains. The EPA idea of Total Maximum Daily Loading was introduced to address these problems directly, but unfortunately calls for unreasonable and unrealistic changes in our current pollution prevention programs. Though I have long recognized the importance of managing agricultural nutrients in a manner that both sustains agricultural profitability while protecting the environment, I am strongly opposed to EPA's TMDL plan, and equally disappointed with the extreme lack of communication, consistency, and straightforwardness by the Department of Agriculture on behalf of American farmers. It has become evident that the EPA overstepped their bounds in the development of their TMDL proposal, avoiding communication with farm groups and Congress, picking and choosing data to support their own regulatory agenda, and underestimating the cost of this program to our states and farmers. Though I am thoroughly disappointed by the EPA's actions, I am even more disappointed that our own Department of Agriculture has stood behind this questionable proposal and turned its back on our farmers. For these reasons I applaud Mr. Berry for his amendment transferring $693,000 to the Department of Resource Conservation and Development so farmers can be assured that the USDA is in fact working for them, not against them.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, We are going to start rewriting the farm bill next year, and we have already started hearings. Sugar review is going to be part of that effort. Some of the gentlemen that favor this amendment make a point about a lot of the money and benefits going to a few producers. Maybe we should restructure to assure that the distribution of benefits is equitable. I will research the possibility of an allocation that benefits individual producers, with possible payment limits, like we do on other commodity producers. It would be possible for the non-recourse loan benefits to go to all producers. It may be possible to prorate the loan and limit the payments. But here is the situation that we are faced with, not only in sugar, but in almost all farm commodities. We have other countries, for example Europe, that are subsidizing five times as much as we subsidize in this country. Again they are subsidizing their farmers up to five times the amount we subsidize in this country, and then, as has been suggested, they overproduce and their extra production, is dumped into what otherwise might be our markets or the world market. Consumers and this body have to face a decision of whether we want parts of our agricultural industry to diminish or if we want to establish the kind of farm policy with support and help that will allow producers in this country to survive. Produced in this country where we can examine how they are grown, and assure the safety of those products. If we don't support agriculture, here is what is going to happen. If we ruin some of our farm industries, we are going to be more dependent on imports. Eventually those imports and those people selling that product, like OPEC, will start charging whatever price they think they can get and we will be forced to accept the quality available. I think it is in our long-term interest, for our and our farmers that we maintain our agricultural production, including sugar. As we start rewriting our 5-year farm bill next year, we do not dismantle current programs with these kinds of amendments in an appropriation.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just to reinforce the Hefley amendment that takes the research money away from asparagus, I mean, I do not know how many people in this Chamber like asparagus, but have my colleagues noticed the increased quality of that asparagus? Right now our asparagus farmers throughout this country are facing the competition of losing their ability to produce because of the imports coming in. Vote against the Hefley amendment. Keep the research going for asparagus. This is a very, very small start. Additionally, let me say that Michigan is third in the nation in asparagus production, growing on over 16,000 acres at an average annual value of over $20 million. The asparagus industry is a small farm specialty crop with an average farm size of 65 acres. Asparagus is a very labor intensive crop as it must still be harvested by hand. During the growing season asparagus must be picked by hand daily with the selection of ripe shoots done by hand labor. When Peru was allowed to export asparagus into the U.S. as a result of the Andean Trade Pact, the U.S. asparagus industry was put at an unfair competitive advantage. While U.S. growers pay at least minimum wage, Peru's average wage is $4 a day. The U.S. industry needs a mechanical harvester to reduce the costs of harvest so they can be competitive with foreign competition. Because asparagus is a minor crop, there is little interest or incentive for private industry to develop a mechanical harvesters. Until the U.S. asparagus industry can find a way to reduce its dependence on hand labor, it is in danger of surviving due to competition from foreign markets. With cooperative assistance from Washington State University and Michigan State University, this funding will help develop mechanical harvesting technology to succeed in a very competitive marketplace. Without our assistance, this small but essential industry could disappear from the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, the National Academy of Sciences has just released a very intensive report where they come to the conclusion, as we did in our report from the Subcommittee on Basic Research, that essentially the food products that are derived by the new genetic modification are as safe, if not safer, than the traditional products and plant products that are derived from cross- pollination and cross-breeding. There are approximately 25,000 genes in a plant. When two such plants are crossed, what one ends up with is unknown offsprings because they do not know what genes are going to mutate in the process of that cross-breeding and which genes end up in the new plant. With genetic modification, one can pick out and isolate one or two genes and know their characteristics. The results of that kind of biotech alteration can be predicted and the advantages and the safety are attested by the scientific community.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. My concern is the implication that the review process is not adequate and the implication that somehow there is some kind of danger with genetically modified products. That is totally incorrect. I think you heard the quote from the National Academy of Sciences suggesting that USDA, EPA and FDA have a good coordinated system to review and regulate agricultural products. The potential scare, from un-scientific accusations does a great disservice not only to the scientific community but to the agricultural producers of this country.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time. Did the gentleman have a chance to see the study that just came out in April?