[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12602]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             FARM SUBSIDIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on 
Appropriations marked up and passed out the agricultural appropriations 
bill. That will be on the House floor next week.
  In that effort this morning, there was an attempt to put language 
into that appropriations bill that would have the effect of having 
limits on the payments that go out to some of the very, very, big, big 
farmers. That amendment was squelched. A tremendous amount of pressure.
  In the House, where we attempted to instruct conferees when the farm 
bill went through, that vote was overwhelming in giving the will of 
this House, this body, that we should have some kind of payment limits 
for farmers on farm price supports.
  Let me just briefly, Mr. Speaker, explain the problem. We sort of 
hoodwink a lot of the American people by saying there are limits on 
what a farmer can receive. Not so. Because there is a loophole in the 
law. It is called generic certificates. After a farmer reaches the 
$75,000 limit that is allocated in the bill as a limit, from that point 
on there is a gimmick called generic certificates, that the government 
will sell the farmer the generic certificate to pay for the commodity. 
The farmer ends up getting the same kind of benefit as what is limited 
under the $75,000 limitation.
  I would call to my colleagues' attention that next week we are trying 
to get language in the agricultural appropriations bill that will have 
some kind of a limit. So some of the farmers that are huge, that are 
big, are not getting million dollar payments that put the smaller 
farmer at a very distinct disadvantage, and that is good policy.
  We should not have programs that wipe the small farmer out, and that 
is what is happening. Because the farm program is capitalized on land 
values, land values have gone up because of this last farm bill, and 
that means that it is harder for a small farmer to survive.
  Let me just ask my colleagues to seriously look at this issue in the 
next several days and consider the amendment that we intend to offer on 
the floor.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.


                            Video Game Bill

  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, while our Nation is defending ourselves from 
attacks from abroad, we are facing another battle here at home. We are 
in a battle for the hearts and the minds and souls of our children. We 
must address the cultural issues that are influencing the behavior of 
our children.
  They are being drowned by the flood of sex and violence from the 
video game industry. When four out of five kids walk into the 
neighborhood stores and buy video games that show people having sex 
with prostitutes, killing police officers, using drugs, and attacking 
our senior citizens, it is time to take action. These games are 
brainwashing our children. They teach them the skills and the will to 
kill.
  I am a parent, a grandparent, and I have had enough of violence that 
we are experiencing amongst our youth. From Columbine, from Texas, to 
Germany we have seen the tragic consequences of youth violence.
  The video game industry is a $9 billion industry. But it is not about 
money, it is about our children. As an adult, you can shoot a gun, you 
can drink a beer, you can smoke a cigar. But if you are giving these 
substances to a child, you are a criminal. When it comes to video games 
with violent or sexual content, the same should be true.
  The pornography industry, the gun industry, the tobacco industry, and 
the alcohol industry all accept regulations on their products when it 
comes to kids. And so must the video industry do the same.
  We, as parents, need to take responsibility for our children. We have 
to monitor where and what they are learning and the type of behavior. 
We are the first and last line of defense. But stores also have a 
responsibility. Parents cannot be undermined by stores that are only 
looking to make a profit.

                              {time}  1400

  Nine out of 10 parents want the stores to prevent our children from 
buying these games. The fact is that these stores are not enforcing 
their own policies. When stores have to decide whether to sell a game 
or make it quick, they do not enforce the policies. That is why, Mr. 
Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 4645, the Protect Children from Video 
Game Sex and Violence Act.

                          ____________________