Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I rise in support of the conference report.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one very important priority is the completion of the animal health facility at Ames, Iowa, and this $58.8 million will complete that $462 million project. And it is so important for human health, animal health, food safety. I just want to thank the committee chairman and the ranking member for their support. I rise in support of this conference report, and encourage the members of the House to do the same, as this is a well-balanced measure. In a climate of tight allocations, the chairman has done an outstanding job of ensuring that sufficient resources are available for the broad range of programs that are funded under this bill. Congresswoman DeLauro has proved to be an excellent ranking member. And, I want to commend the committee staffs on both sides; once again, they have done a fine job under difficult circumstances. Like many Members from rural America, I wish we could have applied higher funding levels in this bill. However, given our budget constraints, I am generally pleased with the funding levels provided. This year, the other body finally saw the light and agreed to final funding for the National Animal Disease Center Modernization Project. This funding will give the Department of Agriculture a world-class facility, with a broad range of animal disease research capabilities. For renewable energy--another important sector to our part of the country and to the agriculture economy--the bill provides 23 million dollars. This program provides small grants that help farmers and small businesses make energy efficiency improvements--ultimately helping farmers hurt by high fuel prices. The measure funds important agriculture research, for both crops and livestock. Like many of my colleagues we must renew our commitment to agriculture research which holds great promise for the future of American agriculture. Over the years, we have made great strides through research, in areas such as disease prevention, food safety, crop yields and animal health. For example, there is again research funding for soybean rust including new treatments for emerging soybean diseases that threaten the economies of our rural communities. Another important element of the bill is funding under the Hatch Act. These funds sustain critical research at our land grant universities. Without Hatch Act funding we would severely limit the ongoing progress being made by some our Nation's most talented scientists and educators. In summary I have noted just a few of the important parts of this FY 06 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. This was a difficult process but we have a good bill that protects our food supply, safeguards the environment and ensures our country continues to benefit from the safest and most reliable pharmaceutical and medical devices in the world. Again, I urge the members to support this conference report.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time. I just want to take a minute to thank the chairman for doing such an unbelievably great job through a very difficult year with the allocations; and the ranking member, who has worked so hard on this bill and is a very good friend; and certainly and most importantly, the staff who have done just a fabulous job of putting together this most difficult bill. Obviously, there are a lot of things we need to do in agriculture with the FDA throughout this entire bill.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge my colleagues to all do the same. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and the great subcommittee staff for their hard work in putting this bill together. The process of structuring an appropriations bill addressing the operational needs of 22 agencies under the Homeland Security Department has, once again, been very difficult, difficult in part because we are funding a mission that has many dimensions and for which there are few absolutes. As I participated in this process, I have come to the conclusion that our approach to funding homeland security has been measured and judicious. We have had to make difficult choices. Most importantly, we continue to benefit from the ideas and knowledge of State and local officials from our districts all around the country. That collective wisdom serves us well. Because of this cooperation, we are beginning to see some of the improvement in the funding processes for first responders. In Iowa, we are working to protect the agriculture community through planning and training, and in fact thousands of people have been trained in our community colleges through federally funded assistance. Iowa and other Midwestern States are doing what is necessary to protect our communities from man-made and natural disasters. Of course, obstacles remain for our security systems. We have demanded much from our States, and the Federal Government must remain a working partner by providing appropriate funding. We must continue to work closely with local and State officials because they are the people we will look to when disaster occurs. I am especially pleased in this bill that we have increased the number of border patrol agents by 2,000 and provide more beds to house the people who are coming across the border illegally until we can send them back to their country. Again, I commend the chairman and the ranking member and urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, if Members like the response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita, they are going to love this motion to instruct. The plan that is being proposed was thought of long before the hurricanes struck. It is a plan that recognizes exactly the problems that we have seen in our response to the hurricanes: The fact that there is not a coordinated plan, a preparation in place to respond to these types of disasters, whether they be man-made or natural disasters. This plan was thought out, and again, I want to emphasize before this disaster struck, and it recognizes the problems that we have in the bureaucracy. I think we should also remember that this is a motion to instruct conferees on the Committee on Appropriations, and Members are totally avoiding the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. There will be hearings. The Secretary will be brought before the committee to discuss this plan, to finally air out the differences. The gentleman is quite right in that sometimes we move in haste around here, such as to respond to 9/11. There is a big debate about FEMA being in Homeland Security. That was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to basically dilute FEMA by putting it in an agency like that. That is why we have a committee of jurisdiction, the authorizers. This is not the way to do business around here. To just have a somewhat knee-jerk reaction to make a political point is not what we should be doing in this Congress. We need to represent the people. We need to represent the idea that we have to be prepared. We have seen by these disasters that what the Secretary is proposing is exactly right, that we need to have coordination between different agencies in this government to prepare. FEMA is an agency to respond to disasters. To have an agency to prepare that can actually talk to everyone involved in the preparation or should be involved is right. I also want to make a point that currently the Secretary has jurisdiction to make these changes, or has the authority under current law. So no matter what this motion to instruct says, the Secretary can go forward. But this idea of trying to make some kind of a political point and beating up on someone who is trying to put forth a plan to prepare this Nation for man-made or natural disasters is simply wrong. Mr. Speaker, I would again simply say if Members liked the response we had to these natural disasters, they will love this motion to instruct.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and first of all, I want to commend him and the ranking member for bringing this bill to the floor and for all their hard work. It is a very difficult bill, as we can see by the debate here. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). The Andean Counterdrug Initiative is an important antidrug effort that supports Colombia and the countries in the Andean region. After years of steady increases, cocaine and heroin production in the Andean Region is decreasing. For the third straight year, from 2002 to 2004, the ACI has helped reduce coca production by 33 percent in Colombia and 21 percent in the region. Opium poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped 52 percent in the year 2004 alone. The total land under coca cultivation in Colombia decreased 7 percent in 2004, the fourth consecutive annual decrease. The United States and our allies disrupted the transport of 248 metric tons of cocaine headed through the transit zone before it could reach U.S. shores in 2004 alone. The ACI has helped streamline extradition procedures resulting in over 250 extraditions to the U.S. since August of 2002, including FARC leader Simon Trinidad and ex-Cali cartel leaders. Over 60,000 families have received alternative crop development assistance, and almost 1,000 infrastructure projects have been built using ACI funds. Even as detractors cite individual instances of human rights' abuses, overall kidnappings dropped by almost 35 percent in 2004 and fell another 60 percent through May of this year. Homicides are down 14 percent in 2004 and dropped another 22 percent since May of this year. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to strongly oppose this amendment which would very much harm our ability to fight this scourge in our country.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for doing such a great job on this bill and for his hard work leading the subcommittee through a very difficult, tight allocation and really coming out with an excellent bill, and also the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), such a great ranking Member and true professional. I appreciate that very much. I also want to express my appreciation to the extremely professional staff that we have on the subcommittee. It really makes our job so much easier. Like I mentioned, this was a difficult bill with a tight allocation, and I think we have a very good product in the end here because of that. I especially want to point out something I think is very important to all livestock producers, anyone concerned about food safety, which is the final $58.8 million going to National Animal Disease Center at Ames, Iowa. This is the last of the $462 million that we have appropriated since the year 2000 for this extraordinarily important facility. I hope this year that the Senate will concur and get their number so we do not have to revisit this issue again next year with the appropriation bill. I am very pleased that the bill includes funding for renewable energy. Obviously, this is very important for Iowa and our country as far as soy diesel, ethanol, biomass, all of those things that are critically important long term as far as gaining energy independence for the United States, but also doing it in a renewable way that is environmentally friendly. This is extraordinarily important; and because of the work we have done here, we are able to finally experience true value-added agriculture for our farmers at home, so they are able to reap the profits from renewable energy. I am very pleased that the chairman has included funding to fight the potential problem and the very real potential problem of soybean rust that has gotten into our country, which could be absolutely devastating to a tremendous crop throughout this country, Iowa and the Midwest in particular. I am very pleased also that the bill includes funding for continued work as far as the Animal ID System that we are trying to get in place so that we can in fact find when we have an outbreak of, say, mad cow disease, something like that, that we are able to identify where that animal came from and that we can ensure the food safety. One issue that was of some controversy through the hearings was continued funding under the Hatch Act for agricultural research. I believe that by continuing the funding of the Hatch Act and getting the dollars to the universities where they absolutely are needed, the Hatch Act funding will allow continued vital research at our land grant universities and allow them to continue the great job that they do for agriculture, for our farmers today to ensure that the breakthroughs of the future will be in the hands of the farmers and for their benefit. Also we have to make sure, and this bill does it, that we have a continuing, strong Risk Management Crop Insurance program. We all have concerns about how it has been administered, and we wanted to make sure that the agency reports to us on a quarterly basis so that we can in fact make sure that that vital program stays in place. Again, in closing, I just want to say thank you once again to the chairman and the ranking member and all the committee staff. This is a tough year, and it is a great bill. I encourage all of my colleagues here in the House to support this bill.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to note that in response to past amendments in the same effect, the Office of Government Ethics has said the government would be depriving itself of much of the best and most relevant outside expertise in many areas. The amendment would prohibit waivers for financial interests that are so insubstantial, remote, or inconsequential that they are typically permitted, even for regular full-time government employees. They went on to say, existing law strikes the correct balance between protecting the government from inappropriate conflicts of interest and recognizing the need for temporary experts who may have unavoidable conflicts in relevant fields of inquiry. I think those concerns are relevant to the Hinchey amendment before us and support a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me explain what this extreme restriction on the Food and Drug Administration would do. The amendment would not allow funding to grant conflict of interest waivers for any Food and Drug Administration advisory committee. The effect would be that the top experts in the field of vaccine research or cancer treatments or cardiac devices would not be able to advise the Federal Government about vaccines, biological products, medical devices, and drugs. The conflict of interest waivers exist so that the most knowledgeable scientists, the ones you would want to consult if your own family was ill, can advise government agencies. These top scientists are few in number and very specialized. Most of them have worked in research sponsored by industry at some point in their careers. We in Congress devised this waiver system so that such experts could serve the government when the need for their services outweighed the potential of conflict of interest due to financial ties to the industry. Since many fields of research are specialized and unique, the conflict of interest waivers are necessary. The granting of a waiver is not pro forma but a measured decision by an impartial party. In some cases, waivers are granted only for participation in the advisory group discussion, and the individual is not permitted to vote on the advisory committee recommendation. I would also like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the term ``advisory.'' Advisory committees make recommendations to FDA but do not vote on product approvals. Product approval decisions are made by federally employed scientists. I would ask my colleagues not to cripple the advisory committee system by making it impossible to recruit the appropriate level of scientific expertise. Please vote no on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to, first of all, express what an honor and privilege it is to work on a subcommittee that works in such a bipartisan way with the great leadership of the chairman and the ranking member. It is really a pleasure to actually get into policy discussions rather than a lot of the politics that we hear around here. It is very much appreciated. Also, the tremendous staff that we have on this subcommittee. I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) mentioned the great professionalism that they have on both sides of the aisle. It is a real pleasure. This bill is a really good bill under an allocation that could always be larger. We have worked out, I think, everything possible we can with the dollars available. I am very appreciative of the fact that we have focused on renewable energy, the kind of important work that we do on the river, on the Mississippi, and other projects that are involved also. I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member and urge support of this very, very good bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating if you would think if there was a proposal in the substitute to eliminate the whole list of taxes that the gentleman referred to, but I have never heard one case where they have talked about eliminating any tax, only increasing taxes. So it is quite an interesting debate. Let me just say, I come to this as someone who grew up in a family farm operation, a family small business. I can tell you firsthand from real life, honest experience the effect that the death tax has on families and creating jobs and opportunities and being able to continue what I believe is the American Dream, and that is to have an opportunity for your children and your grandchildren to continue a life that you love and cherish. Nothing stands in the way more for families and small businesses to be successful, to continue, than the death tax. We spend thousands and thousands of dollars every year as a way to try and avoid what the death tax will do to us. It is morally wrong that the day you die, your heirs should not only see the undertaker but have to go see the tax man to see how much the Federal Government is going to take away from a lifetime of work. The idea, while the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), I have the greatest respect for him, but the idea of continuing an immoral tax that destroys family, destroys family businesses, I have seen neighbors who have lost everything they have, lost generations of work on a family farm because of the death tax. It is a fact that nothing is more harmful, nothing is more hurtful than a tax that takes away the hope of the American Dream. This country is based on farms, on small businesses. That is the lifeblood of this Nation, and nothing destroys it more than the death tax; and that is why we have to kill this death tax to make sure that we can experience the American Dream in this country.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support passage of S. 2965, a bill to extend for one year the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999. As the author of the original legislation, I am pleased to see that this important program will continue for one additional year. It is my hope that during that time the program will be improved and, if it is proven cost effective, made permanent. Four major packers slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle and process about 85 percent of boxed beef. According to producer organizations, because of the high level of concentration, it is very important to maintain a level playing field for all producers. Mandatory price reporting addresses non-contract livestock producers concerns that the increasing use of contracts prevents complete transparency in livestock prices that, in the past, would've been made public at auction. Additionally, independent livestock producers fear that the increasing use of contracts means that there is less of a market for their product, and the price they will receive will remain low through possible packer collusion. Mandatory price reporting provides market transparency, thus ensuring that our producers get the best prices for their livestock. Mr. Speaker, I am very supportive of this one-year extension. It will give Congress additional time to determine the efficacy of the program, whether the cost of the program outweighs the benefit, and verify price data problems that arose with USDA's implementation of the program have since been fixed.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this legislation honoring Special Olympics. I thank my good friend the Majority Whip for introducing this legislation. For over thirty years Special Olympics has played an important role in the lives of some very special individuals with intellectual disabilities. Special Olympics offer a platform of personal improvement while also fostering a spirit of camaraderie in competition. Competition and sports teach us very important lessons about dedication, determination, responsibility, pride and team work or self- sufficiency, as the case may be. I believe that many of my colleagues in this body learned formative lessons through athletic competition, and I believe that--as the Special Olympics philosophy also articulates--lessons learned in sport and competition shape productive citizens. In recognizing Special Olympics, I believe that we must also recognize the Shriver family for their role in envisioning the games and allowing them to become what they are today. According to the Special Olympics Web site, the Games have grown from the original 35 participants at Camp Shriver in Rockville, Maryland into a 1.4 million athlete, multi-national movement. The bill we are considering today is entitled the Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act. The title is fitting because of the bill's four purposes: providing support to Special Olympics to increase athlete participation and public awareness, dispelling negative stereotypes about people with intellectual disabilities, building athlete and family involvement through sport, and promoting the gifts of people with intellectual disabilities. As a long time supporter of Special Olympics, I am honored to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I am also pleased that Ames, Iowa will be a direct beneficiary of this bill. The inaugural Special Olympics U.S. National Games will be held in my district in Ames, Iowa. This tremendous event will take place from July 3-9, 2006 and is expected to bring 4,000 athletes from all fifty states, over 1,000 coaches, and 9,000 family members and friends to the Ames area. Volunteers are expected to number nearly 10,000. I believe that this forward looking bill is very worthy of our support and I would ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Special Olympics.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I will be very, very brief. I would only like to congratulate our great chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) on a very difficult bill that is one that we cannot fail on. We have to be successful as far as our homeland security. I would also like to acknowledge the great work of the staff that has done a very good job and worked very, very hard on this bill. I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge my colleagues to do the same. I want to commend Chairman Rogers, Mr. Sabo and the subcommittee staff for their work in putting this homeland security bill together. The process of structuring this appropriations bill to address the operational needs of the 22 agencies and departments under the Homeland Security Department has, once again, been a difficult one. I suspect it will be difficult again next year, in part, because we are funding a mission that has many dimensions, and for which there are few absolutes. As I have watched and participated in this process, I have come to the conclusion that our approach to funding homeland security has been measured and judicious. We have not thrown good money after bad, but rather made difficult choices. There are some in this House who want to put more money in this bureau or that agency. Some of those Members are well-intentioned, while others simply want to create a political issue by forcing Members to make a choice between spending more money on the one hand, or appearing to be less than responsible on homeland security issues on the other. This is a false choice. In the future, we would do ourselves a favor by avoiding the temptation to politicize the funding of this important function. I hope that as we go forward in the FY-06 cycle, we will recognize that there is much room for honest debate on the subject of homeland security funding. However, none of our constituents is served well by gaming this funding debate, and certainly the mission of protecting the homeland is not served well by this approach. As we go forward in the area of homeland security, we will continue to make progress in sorting out priorities. We will continue to benefit from the ideas and knowledge of State and local officials from our districts around the country, and from the innovations of DHS officials. That collective wisdom will serve us well. The process we went through this year for homeland security represented an improvement over last year. Going forward, we will improve over this year. I think because, once again, we carried out our duty to appropriate these funds in a measured way, we will improve on the FY-06 process. Again, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking minority member, Mr. Sabo, and urge the Members to support this conference report.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is a good offset. It is absolutely critical that we fund renewable energy as much as possible. I am very pleased that we will be able to do this, increase that account. Ethanol is so important as far as our dependency on foreign oil. We have tremendous opportunities in the Midwest, in Iowa, throughout the country to lessen our dependency on foreign oil with such things as soy diesel, biomass, wind, energy, all of those things that are renewable sources of energy and are going to be so important for our future for energy independence in this country. It is an economic issue. Through rural America, we have an opportunity in rural America to do what we do best, and that is take solar energy through photosynthesis, be able to convert that into corn, soybeans, whatever kind of crops, and then convert that into renewable sources of energy. We need the dollars for research, it is absolutely critical, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of this amendment. Anyone who deals on the local level with the NRCS understands how the staffing shortages, the need for more funds at the local level are so absolutely critical to be able to handle the programs that are so important to farmers today. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where people who actually do the work are in contact with the farmers themselves, who do all the work out in the fields. This is extremely important that we do have those funds available to make sure that we are adequately staffed. Also, when we look at rural development, economic development, it is a critical issue for us to make sure that we have the resources available out in the country to be able to help small businesses, to be able to help our rural communities grow and prosper. So I think this amendment is very, very important; and I certainly rise in support.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I became aware of this over the past year; and it is a very, very important issue that the gentleman from Nebraska is trying to deal with. When we have bureaucrats that are not responsive to constituents, and without any valid reason, certainly it is something we should all be very concerned about and would support his efforts in any way possible.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas knows, I have been and remain concerned about the funding level for the renewable energy program. The bill before us today funds this program at $15 million; and even though this funding level is a $4.2 million increase above the budget request, it is $8 million below the fiscal year 2004 funding level. As we have discussed, this program is important to Iowa and the whole country, particularly in the wind and biomass areas, because it makes grants available to rural, small businesses, agricultural producers and others who purchase renewable energy systems or make energy improvements. This program has the potential to improve rural living standards and economic opportunities and to create jobs. In short, there is a significant value-added component for rural areas that comes with this program.

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much. I look forward to working with him on this. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage Members to support this bill as it is a well-balanced measure. The chairman has done an outstanding job of trying to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the broad range of programs that are funded under this bill. Like many of the Members, I have my thoughts as to some programs that I wish could be a bit more generously funded, but given the need to produce a balanced product under the agricultural allocation, I am pleased with this bill. I want to comment on a few other areas of interest that I believe are important beyond the renewable energy program that the chairman and I just discussed. For example, we must continue to focus on agricultural research which I think is an area that holds great promise for the future of agriculture economies and the consuming public that those economies feed. I also think that we should remain diligent about the development of an animal identification program that is reliable and easy to work with for all parties needing to access it. In this regard, it is important that we have adequate resources for animal health monitoring and surveillance, and this bill contains such resources. Also, I want to mention my support for land conservation which this bill funds. In this regard, I know many Members have constituencies with interests in the conservation security program. The program is of considerable interest in Iowa, not only among those in the agriculture production arena but also those who are generally concerned about the environment in general. I share that concern and want to see the conservation security program as a concept developed in an optimal way. On the other hand, it would be unwise to begin full-scale implementation of the CSP and spend billions of dollars before that program is fine-tuned. In numerous conversations that I and my staff have had about the CSP in Iowa and elsewhere, the prevailing view is that the CSP program needs work. Both corn and soybean association representatives as well as others with whom I have talked support CSP, but at this point they believe that the program is not ready to go forward at full speed. I also want to personally thank the chairman and the staff that did such a tremendous job on this bill. One extraordinarily important item in the bill is the full funding for the National Animal Disease Center at Ames, Iowa. It is a large number in the bill. It is one that the staff and the chairman have really worked hard to secure those funds for us. I certainly thank the President for including funding for the Animal Disease Center in his budget request. This is an extraordinarily important facility similar to the CDC for livestock and animals and very, very important for the security of our Nation, when we talk about anthrax, when we talk about mad cow disease, all of those things. It is very, very important that we have this facility on-line and that it is completed on a timely, expedited basis.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This is a good rule, and it is a good bill. The committee has worked to put together a bipartisan bill, and I believe that goal has been accomplished. The bill provides critical funding for basic agricultural programs, but it goes farther than that. It also supports rural and economic development, human nutrition, agricultural exports, land conservation and renewable energy, as well as food, drug, and medical safety. This bill will deliver benefits to every one of your constituents every day, no matter what kind of district you represent. I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Support the rule; support the bill.