[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 132 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6375-H6376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOOD INSPECTION SYSTEM
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include
therein extraneous material.)
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
[[Page H6376]]
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.
____________________