Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this supplemental appropriation. This is one of the most important votes we will cast this year. For the future of peace in the Middle East and the promise of a better future for the children of Iraq--this vote should be one vote you will remember for the rest of your life. Without question, we will have concerns about the amount of money the reconstruction of Iraq will cost the American public. Eighty-six billion dollars . . . it's a lot of money. Like you, I have received many letters from my constituents asking ``why?'' I have been peppered during town hall meetings. ``Why is it that Americans are always the ones who have to pay?'' Why? Because we are Americans. Because, when ruthless dictators take innocent lives, when people-- like Saddam Hussein--terrorize their own people, when evil people conduct unspeakably evil acts against their own--we must ask ourselves, ``Who else will act?'' ``Who else will?'' Time and again, America has given its blood, its strength and its money to promote and protect freedom overseas. As the world's standard bearer for democracy and freedom we have inherited this duty. We are America--This is what we do. Some will say that we cannot afford to support Iraq. I say we can't afford not to. We are committed--like it or not--to the rebuilding efforts in Iraq. It is incumbent upon us to lay the foundation of a free economy for a country now free from oppression. The Iraqi people are looking to us to uphold our responsibility for security and reconstruction. We must follow through on our commitments to the Iraqi people and the local population must understand that we have their true interests at heart. We should never again come to the floor of this House and make speeches about mass graves, malnutrition, environmental devastation and WMD. Neither should we again detail to our constituents the horrors of state-sponsored rape, murder and torture in Iraq. Can it happen again? You bet. Saddam's minions want us to leave, they want Americans dead--because they will use the same forces of terror they are using today, to kill innocent Iraqis and American soldiers, as a path to power tomorrow. If we abandon Iraq, we are back to square one. We dishonor the men and women who have given their lives for us and the Iraqi people during this necessary mission. Our Nation's fight for freedom in Iraq. Our job will have been left undone and for what? This Congress should be committed to assisting Iraq in becoming an independent, self-governing and economically viable nation. We must finish the work and honor the sacrifice of so many dedicated soldiers. To abandon our efforts would be inhumane to the people of Iraq and dangerous to our national security. The world has changed. Many of us--especially those of us on the Appropriations Committee--sensed a new insecurity after the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. The United Stated did not act appropriately then. The events in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania forced us into this new role because we must protect ourselves and the free world. Why? Once again. Because who else will? So here we are today, setting the course for a free Iraq. We have all been sent to Washington by our constituents to make difficult and honest choices. You will make a choice today. This package reflects a vision and a hope that America can be a catalyst for freedom and peace in the Middle East--freedom that generations of Iraqis have not yet experienced and the kind of freedom we take for granted every day. Be a catalyst for freedom and security. Vote in favor of this appropriations bill.

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 do the same. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) who has done such an outstanding job in putting together this first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and all the subcommittee staff for the tremendous work on this bill. The process of structuring a new appropriations bill to address the operational needs of the 22 agencies and departments under the new Homeland Security Department has not been easy this year. It will not be easy next year either because we have to make changes to accommodate the lessons that we are going to learn. Having 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 have made difficult choices in funding the different functions of this new department. All along, I felt that the worst mistake we could make in funding this new department would be to get into a bidding war in the Congress over what faction could spend the most money on individual activities and facilities before we have a full picture of needs and capabilities. There are some in this House who want to put more money in that 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 one hand or appearing to be less than responsible on homeland security issues on the other. This political game is played by throwing arbitrary numbers into the public arena and then questioning the commitment to homeland security on the part of some in this body. The time for games is over. It is time to get serious. At the end of the day, there is much room remaining for an honest debate, but not one of our constituents is served well by gaming the debate. As we go forward in this new area of homeland security, we will make progress in sorting out priorities. In the process, we will have the benefit of the ideas and knowledge of the State and local officials from our districts around the country. That collective wisdom will serve us well. Knowing that we have the opportunity to improve this bill over time is a good reason to be measured in the way we appropriate these funds, and again, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member and urge the Members to support this conference report.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, I would just like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for just an unbelievable job and to thank the terrific staff that we have in this subcommittee. I am very proud to be a member of this subcommittee and to have the opportunity to work with such great people. It is really an honor. There is no one in the House who is more concerned about renewable energy than I am, and there are just a couple of points I think that we should make here. I am going to oppose the amendment for various reasons. I would remind the House, last Monday afternoon when we were doing the Agriculture appropriations bill on the floor here, we accepted an amendment which put an additional $20 million into renewable energy research. So combined with what the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development has done, we are not starving renewable energy at all; and, in fact, we will work in a bipartisan way to increase funding when we get to conference for that. Also, as a Member who serves on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Committee on Appropriations, I cannot emphasize enough to the House how important the funding is that is in this bill that the chairman has put in as far as nuclear energy, as far as the storage issue for our national security. It is extraordinarily important that we do not take money away from what the chairman has placed in this account. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of our home security; and I would just implore all Members to encourage renewable energy research, but do not take it out of this account. It is absolutely critical that we maintain the level of funding we have, and hopefully increase, because it is a critical issue.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it. Given our allocation, the Majority and Minority have worked well together to fashion a workable measure. I also want to compliment the Chairman on a job well-done. I am particularly interested in this bill because of the funding it provides to the Corps of Engineers for activities on our navigable waterways. In our agriculture communities, the transportation provided by these waterways is extremely important to cost-efficient and timely grain shipments. That said, it is important for my constituents-- farmers and consumers alike--to have well-operated and well-maintained waterway systems on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. As part of our efforts to keep our waterways in good working order, we have funded the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study. This study is a comprehensive review of the needs of the Mississippi transportation system and will provide us reliable data about the efficiencies of this critical waterway. We have also funded the Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, an initiative aimed at improving flood protection, mitigating flood damage, and enhancing habitat management and erosion control. Other Corps funding with respect to navigation that is important to Iowa's farmers and grain shippers pertains to the operation and maintenance of the dams and locks along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. These activities are important because without proper operation of these locks and dams, much of our food production system suffers economically because of costly delays in the movement of grains and other agricultural products. Overall, though the Corps funding is less than I would like to see it, I do believe that we have done a good job in dividing up the monies so the Corps can do the things that it does best. For this reason and others important to my State, I am going to support passage and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. If we could expedite the process.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would be more than happy to accept the amendment, and we would like to expedite the process if we could.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture Funding measure because it represents a good product under difficult circumstances. As we all know, this bill is not perfect--in large part because the allocation for Fiscal Year 2004 is considerably less than last year--some $800 million, in fact. Because of the drop-off between the FY-03 allocation and the one for 04, the committee has to make difficult choices in order to accommodate the various sectors that are funded in the bill. While we are going to hear today that this bill short changes many areas, we should consider that the bill has many positives because it does. Even with reduced resources, many important programs are well-funded. For example, funding for the FDA's generic drug program is increased, as is FDA funding for food safety. The bill includes monies to implement the ``Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act''. This bill also includes funding for valuable agriculture research that is currently carried out at major research centers. That research includes exploring better ways to make our agricultural production lands more efficient, and our ways of production more environmentally sound. For example, there is funding for animal feeding operations pilot projects that bring innovative technology to bear as we seek to reduce wastewater nutrients discharged from animal feeding operations. Other research funding goes to helping us to better understand the origins of food crop diseases through high-level initiatives aimed at making our food production more economical and more healthy. Countless projects around the country will make significant strides in the research arena in the coming year because of this bill. Many of those projects are in the states of some of the members who will speak ill of this measure today. But we should remember that those important research initiatives would not have been possible were it for the measured approach taken in reporting this bill of committee. Not only did the committee have to make difficult program funding choices, but it also had to make choices to accomodate members of this body. At a point in the process, decisions had to be made, and I believe that the chairman did an excellent job in balancing the various needs and interests of the agriculture community and the members. As a member of the subcommittee from an agriculture state, I can tell you that there are several things that I would like to have seen come out differently, particularly as to funding levels. As a member of the agriculture subcommittee on appropriations, I can also tell you that all of us can point to things that we would like to have seen come out differently. In the end however, a good product has been fashioned, and I urge you to support it.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the yielding me this time, and I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. First of all, I want to say, no one through the whole process on this issue has ever contended that this is a food safety issue. As the ranking member of the authorizing committee said three or four times, it is very true, this is not an issue of food safety in any way, shape or form. The reason I oppose this amendment today is in support of our independent producers. I would just like to give a little scenario about what is going to happen if this is enacted. All we are asking for here is a time-out to study the issue more closely before a mandatory system is enacted. But what we are going to see is a system where independent producers are going to bear the cost of implementation of this law, and anyone who thinks that the packers really care about the cost on this are totally mistaken. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, any kind of cost that they would incur is going to result in reduced bids to the independent producers out there who do not control the price that they get for their products. The situation in my State is that we have Canadian pigs coming into Iowa to be grown out primarily by independent producers. If this is enacted, we are going to see the large conglomerates start from raising, farrowing their own hogs, growing those hogs out, killing those hogs, putting them in their own labeling package, marketing themselves. Those are going to all say ``USA.'' The independent producers' animals are going to have to say that they were bred in Canada or wherever they came from and are going to be discriminated against. The issue here is, do we preserve our independent producers? We talk about vertical integration in the livestock industry. Nothing is going to bring it on faster than provisions like this that will hold the independent producer accountable but not the major, multinational companies. So I just stand here in support of the independent producers and look at the mandate that is going to be put on them and what it is going to cost them. The one question I have asked producers, in what way, shape or form is this ever going to put one more cent in your pocket, in your bottom line? No one has been able to answer that question. So I think we have to step back, take a look at this, and understand all of the ramifications of this issue. Also, Mr. Chairman, I have to look at the cost to the consumer out there when we talk about the additional costs that are going to be borne by the retailers. Who is going to pay the bill? The consumers who walk in and buy that at the counter are going to absorb the cost. So, in support of independent producers and consumers, I reluctantly say that we should oppose this amendment and support our independent producers.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman for the great job that he has done on this bill. It is the first Homeland Security appropriation bill in history. We are charting new waters here, and I also want to strongly compliment the great staff that we have on the subcommittee. They have done just an outstanding job to bring this very difficult bill together with all the ramifications that we have. All Members here should be keenly aware of how difficult this task is and how broad the jurisdiction is, trying to combine 22 different Federal agencies into one Department, have them communicate with each other, have them function together, have them understand their role is to cooperate with States and local governments to ensure our homeland security. This is a bill unlike any other that we have; and as the Chairman has said so many times, we are successful when nothing happens. As we are spending all this money, if the final outcome is that everything remains quiet, we have been successful, and it is very difficult to judge exactly how many dollars need to go exactly where to complete our role, but I think the chairman and the subcommittee have done an outstanding job. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and commend Chairman Rogers for his attention to the many difficult issues we have discussed in our hearings on homeland security. He has been given the tough job of putting together a spending bill for this new Department and this bill is a testament to his good work and the good work of the Subcommittee staff--they have done an excellent job under difficult circumstances. Mr. Chairman, the approach the Subcommittee has taken with this bill has been one of strong support for the mission of this new Department and a scrutiny of the many requests and ideas put forth by Members and others. I believe this has been the best approach because we are moving through uncharted territory. One of my concerns has been that--going forward with this new bill--we would put forth too much money in a way that would paint us into a corner before all of the most pressing homeland security needs became clear. I believed early on--and still believe--the members of this Committee deserve to know the most efficient methods in which to deploy our Homeland Security resources. We cannot appropriately fund programs that do not have understandable goals or clear justifications. Every State and Member of Congress should be aware of the pitfalls of adding monies to specific accounts because they feel they have the best answer to our Homeland Security problems. Let me remind you. We are witnessing the infancy of a Department. There are few of us in this body who have been faced with the enormous and important task of funding a new Department of this size. I am certain nearly every one of you has been asked to request funding for a specific appropriation for a specific homeland security project. I'm betting that most of you have been overwhelmed by the number of ``potential targets'' in your district. Those of us on the Subcommittee share your concern. But, this bill is not about Congress making local security decisions--it is about making sure our local responders have a functional Federal agency to work with to solve those problems. That said--as we move deeper into the process of providing for our Homeland Security, we are going to get a clearer picture of what our needs are. We will be in a better position to prioritize those needs. Congress is not in a position to mess around with local funding matters. Until the Congress, the administration and our local providers have confidence in the long-term needs, I think the approach we are taking today--in this first year of funding for this new Department--is the correct one. Again, I want to commend the Chairman for his work on this bill and I urge all of the Members of this body to support this bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that today marks the third anniversary of the FCC's now-infamous press release announcing its decision on the local competition issue. In spite of the FCC's announcement, we still have not seen the text of the FCC's decision. This is a thorny issue, Mr. Speaker, one involving heartfelt disagreement. The only thing that both the incumbent local exchange carriers and competitive local exchange carriers agree on is the need for regulatory certainty. This uncertainty is precisely the wrong prescription for the ailing telecom sector of our economy. The telecommunications sector has been extremely hard-hit over the course of the last few years, laying off thousands of employees and shrinking construction budgets. The FCC's decision has the promise for bringing some regulatory certainty to the sector upon which it can base investment and hiring decisions. Instead of promptly releasing the text of the order, thereby hastening new investment and additional hiring, the FCC has delayed for 90 days. This delay has the effect of preventing any economic benefits that could result from the Commission's decision. Having worked so hard to pass jobs and growth packages that will get our economy back on track, this delay is simply unacceptable. I hope the FCC will not delay the release of its order any longer. We need those jobs and investments in the telecom sector, and we need them soon.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if I could engage the chairman in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Senate version of the supplemental contains funding for further construction activity for the National Animal Disease Center facilities in Ames, Iowa. This initiative is one that the Agriculture Department has been planning for some time. After 9/11 and with the potential threats to our food supply, the urgency of this modernization initiative has become more pronounced. In fact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was put into the Department of Homeland Security because of such threats. We are working closely with the USDA budget office to ensure a timely and cost-effective construction schedule, enabling a usable first phase that includes the biocontainment level 3 lab. This national animal disease facility is important for the prevention and diagnostic research for animal-related disease threats, when we talk about the potential for contamination of our food supply. The longer we delay this project, the more expensive it becomes, and the further out the full project completion date. Without appropriate funding, we risk our construction costs by tens of millions of dollars. Will the Chairman agree to work with me on this National Animal Disease Center lab modernization initiative so as to complete the full project as soon as practical and with minimum cost increase?

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with my colleagues an essay written by Jefferson Brown, a constituent of mine from Mason City, IA. Jefferson is a 12-year-old 6th grader at Roosevelt Middle School in Mason City. He recently won an award from the Elks Lodge in Mason City and will soon be traveling to the State Capital in Des Moines to compete in a state-wide competition. I submit his award-winning essay for the Record. The American flag means many things to me. It symbolizes pride, joy, strength, and ability. These all come from the flag of the great country we live in. The flag symbolizes pride, the pride of our country, ourselves, and pride for our flag of America. It gives hope, it gives us pride, the flag is a symbol of our pride in our country. The flag represents joy for the heroes who stood tall defending our country. Joy when the warriors came home to us all. The joy of one, the joy of all is in the flag that flies high above us, the flag stands for joy in America. Strength is in the flag, and the strength is in the hearts of all the American people. The strength is in our army, strength in those who lost a loved one on those days when we stood tall. The strength is in one; the strength is in all, it is in America; that stands tall. Last but not least, ability. The flag stands for ability. Ability is in all of us, it is what we do. We are better at some things than others. Some of us can run or jump better then others, or we can draw or write better; but the point is that we all must bring our abilities together just as if we were colors on the American flag, the colors come together to make the flag. Just as we must, all united as one.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our national security and in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker I rise today to join my colleagues that are in support of this resolution. Last year there were two very significant events in my life--one was the birth of my first grandchild, Emerson Ann. The second was the September 11th attack on our Nation. both of these events had a deep impact on me personally. I want for Emerson Ann what every parent wants for their children, and what every grandparent wants for their grandchildren, an environment where she is able to grow up secure and safe, living the experience of freedom upon which our Nation was founded. September 11th reminded us that in order to protect freedom we must not turn a blind eye to the real dangers around the World in hopes that they will not affect us. After numerous briefings on Iraq and the activities of its leader-- Saddam Hussein--there is no doubt in my mind that he is clear and present danger to the United States and freedom loving people around the World. The evidence mounts with each passing day. Many analysts believe that Iraq may be, or become, a breeding ground and source of support for terrorism. Iraq retains its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and there is strong evidence that it is also developing nuclear weapons. There is no way of knowing for sure the extent of Iraq's plans or capabilities, since U.N. weapons. There is no way of knowing for sure the extent of Iraq's plans or capabilities, since U.N. weapons inspectors were forced out of the country in 1998, and since Iraq's current government seems committed to hiding weapons of mass destruction, delaying the return of inspectors, and making inspection efforts ineffective. Saddam Hussein governs his country by de facto dictatorship, and has a long history of human rights abuses against his own people. And, based on the actions of Iraq's current government under Hussein, it would be shortsighted and naive to assume that Iraq's intentions through his actions are benign. I believe that a regime change in Iraq is in the best interest of the United States and our allies. And, I believe that, as we have done throughout our history, the United States must one again display our leadership in the fight against terrorism throughout the World and eliminate the threat to security imposed by Iraq. While this resolution authorizes military action, I will hold out hope that it will be used only as a last resort. History has taught us that freedom is not free.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my intention to vote against H.R. 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. I firmly support the base principle of this legislation--reinforcing the right of freedom of speech to America's religious leaders without fear of losing their tax-exempt status. However, I cannot support this legislation because it does not address the issue of political contributions and fundraising by or within the church. Under this bill churches can maintain their tax exempt status while engaging in political activity such as endorsements, issue advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Most egregiously, under this bill churches will become involved with partisan fundraising while allowing for tax deductible and tax-exempt status for the church and congregation. The abuse by political parties and partisan groups and individuals of so many American institutions when it comes to political activity should not be allowed to cross the doorway into America's houses of worship. Politics is not the purpose of our places of worship. I have been informed that 77 percent of clergy and over two-dozen religious groups have announced their opposition to this bill. While I do believe that the primary intentions of the bill were well meant, I cannot support it in this form.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a resolution from the Iowa State University Government of the Student Body. The document referred to is as follows: Iowa State University, Government of the Student Body Senate Resolution 2001-3-060SR The Greatest Ever Whereas, Cael Sanderson, an Art and Design major, has recently completed his four seasons as a collegiate athlete, and Whereas, Mr. Sanderson has won more matches than any other wrestler in collegiate history, and Whereas, Mr. Sanderson is the first wrestler ever to win the Dan Hodge Trophy three (3) years in a row and the first three-time winner of this honor, and Whereas, Mr. Sanderson has won the national championship each of the four years he has competed, and Whereas, Mr. Sanderson was the first college wrestler to ever win the NCAA Tournament's Outstanding Wrestler award four times, and Whereas, Mr. Sanderson has finished his collegiate career with a 159-0 record, and Whereas, Mr. Sanderson has brought new spectators to his sport in droves, and Whereas, Mr. Sanderson is not only a great wrestler, but also a humble contributor to the Iowa State Community, be it therefore Resolved, That the Government of the Student Body recognizes Cael Sanderson as a legendary campus figure whose athletic achievements are unparalleled not only at Iowa State, but unparalleled throughout collegiate history, and be it further Resolved, That the achievements of Cael Sanderson have made the students of Iowa State University very proud, and be it further Resolved, The students of Iowa State University wish to commemorate Cael Sanderson and his accomplishments on our campus, and be it further Resolved, That copies of this legislation be sent to Cael Sanderson, President Gregory Geoffroy, Board of Regents, State of Iowa, Vice President Warren Madden, Vice President for Student Affairs Thomas Hill, Athletic Director Bruce Van De Veldc, The ISU Foundation, ISU Alumni Association, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and all other appropriate print and broadcast media. Madam Speaker, this is a great day to be an Iowa State fan. It is a great day to be from the State of Iowa to show honor and recognition for a tremendous young man, a tremendous athlete who did an astounding thing through his collegiate career at Iowa State. Cael Sanderson is that young man. We just had the honor to be with the President, Cael, myself, and the Speaker, down in the Oval Office, and the chance to visit with the President. Cael, all the honors bestowed on him are very, very much deserved. I congratulate him, as the entire House will, with this resolution. Cael is now married to Kelly. His parents, Steve and Debbie, had four sons, Cody, Cole, Cyler, and Cael. Apparently they wrestled a lot in the house. They are still trying to fix a few walls around there from all the wrestling going on. Cael Sanderson is truly the pride of Iowa State; and not only really Iowa State, but the entire State. With the history we have, the tradition of wrestling in the State of Iowa, he is someone that we hold in extraordinary high esteem. Not since Dan Gable back in my days at Iowa State has there been anything close to what Cael has accomplished. I would like to really personally thank him. I have a new bobblehead doll of Cael Sanderson which will be my number one prize possession now. Just to bring part of the record forward for Cael, he had a perfect collegiate record, which had never been achieved before: 159 wins, no losses. He was four-time NCAA national champion; he was four-time NCAA outstanding wrestler; and three times a winner of the Dan Hodge Trophy, which is the highest acknowledgment that you can have as a college wrestler. I would say, Madam Speaker, that Cael Sanderson is much more. He is a tremendous young man. He was a two-time All-American academic winner at Iowa State. He is truly an inspiration and an example for all young people today. The way Cael conducts himself makes us all very, very proud. He is the type of young man that we would like all of our young people to emulate. We hear so many times about the problems we have today with our youth, and some troubles they get into; but someone like Cael Sanderson is an individual that these young people can look up to as an example of someone with his leadership that they can follow and really get themselves on the right path in life. Just on behalf of the Iowa delegation, all Iowans and, I think, all Americans, we want to congratulate Cael Sanderson and thank him for his tremendous achievements, and wish him and his wife Kelly the best of luck. Cael is going to be in the Olympics in 2004 and is working very hard towards that goal. We wish him the best of luck, and we thank especially his family for all their tremendous support; and the family at Iowa State, Coach Bobby Douglas and everyone, especially the fans at Iowa State, for the tremendous support they have given to Cael, and wrestling in general at Iowa State. Madam Speaker, again, congratulations and thanks to Cael Sanderson.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and compliment the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for putting forth a budget and passing a budget in the House of Representatives. As we all know, the other body has not even brought a budget to the floor, so it is very difficult to get important legislation done or appropriations bills in that other body with the current situation. This resolution today is extraordinarily important for real people who are facing a real problem of trying to deal with a tax that they believe to be wrong. Many believe, as I do, that it is simply immoral to tax twice assets that people have worked all of their lives to save, to try and put something together for a family, to build a business, and then at the day of death have the Federal Government walk in and say that we are going to take away 50 to 60 percent of those assets that have been worked a lifetime for. There are some economists that say that no one pays the death tax; it is not a big consequence. The fact of the matter is that is simply wrong. I can give an example of the Behn family in my home county. I talked to Larry Behn this morning. He is the grandson of Arthur and Frieda Behn. Larry is selling cars in Hampton today. Back in the early 1980s, he had the misfortune of losing both of his grandparents at the same time. At that time land values in Iowa and across the Midwest were at the very highest they have ever been. Because both of his grandparents passed away at the same time, the valuation of their property came in at that very high level. They, like most farmers, did not have the cash to pay that. As the estate settlement went on, the valuation of farm land in Iowa nose-dived. By the time they were forced to sell those farms, the 1,500 acres that Arthur and Frieda Behn had worked a lifetime to put together so their children and grandchildren would have that opportunity, the valuation was about a third. They had to sell off that land. Because the valuation had gone down so much, it barely covered the cost of the death tax that they were stuck with. Because of that, they have lost those 1,500 acres of land. They have lost that hope that Arthur and Frieda Behn had put together over a lifetime. It is simply wrong what this death tax does to real people. We have got to repeal it and do away with it because it is wrong. There is right and wrong in this country. Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from a couple in my district in 2000 when the debate was going on about repealing the death tax. They write: ``At age 79 and age 77, with serious health problems, my wife and I are very worried and concerned about how large our estate tax will be. It is affecting our eating and sleeping habits. Old people like us should not have to have these concerns.'' Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can say it better than these folks did, that it does have real effect on real people. It is wrong. We need to repeal the death tax immediately. I hope the other body would soon take up this important legislation that the House of Representatives has acted on a broad bipartisan basis to achieve.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time, and I thank the Speaker for this time. This is a long time coming. This is so important for people like my mother who is 85 years old, living in a town of 168 people in Alexander, Iowa. This is not only a bill that is going to help her to be able to afford her prescription drugs and to enhance her length of life and quality of life; but just as importantly, in rural America, this bill is going to make sure that there is access to quality health care in rural America. There is a lot of work that has gone into this bill, and I would like to see any other proposal out there that has brought together so many people when we look at the American Hospital Association, the AMA, the physical therapists, the National Association of Home Care, the National Rural Health Care Association, all coming together in support of this very, very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have been very proud to serve on the Speaker's Prescription Drug Action Team, and I want to thank the Speaker and all the chairmen of the committees that have worked so hard on this bill and to the successful end which is really going to address the problems that we have. I also want to congratulate my three Republican colleagues from Iowa (Mr. Leach), (Mr. Nussle), and (Mr. Ganske) for working as a team to try and make sure that we did get relief in Iowa. We have the lowest reimbursement for our hospitals in the country by a wide margin. This bill is going to take a giant step toward keeping those rural hospitals open, to keep the kind of high-quality health care providers on the job and serving in Iowa. It is absolutely critical that we continue to have the physicians, the nurses, the home health care folks available for my mother. Mr. Speaker, this is a great evening, and I support the rule and the bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, then I shall not refer to the fact that he is in the gallery. Mr. Speaker, the Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest award for bravery, is a true representation of the best in the American spirit. Requiring eyewitness accounts of gallantry, at selfless mortal risk, and so far above the call of duty as to be beyond reproach should such action not have been undertaken, recipients of this award are surely those for whom the Star Spangled Banner was written; these are the people who make our country the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. I believe that these worthy individuals are deserving of a significant and continuous public display and believe that a flag is a fitting way to honor our heroes. As an Iowan, I am proud to continue the tradition of honoring those who have distinguished themselves in battle. On December 9, 1861, Iowa Senator James W. Grimes introduced S. No. 82 in the United States Senate, a bill designed to promote the efficiency of the Navy by authorizing the production and distribution of medals of honor. On December 21, the bill was passed, authorizing 200 such medals be produced ``which shall be bestowed upon such petty officers, seamen, landsmen and marines as shall distinguish themselves by their gallantry in action and other seamanlike qualities during the present war,'' referring to the Civil War at that time. Mr. Speaker, 2 months later on February 17, 1862, Massachusetts Senator Henry Wilson introduced a bill to authorize an Army Medal of Honor. President Lincoln signed the bill on July 14, 1862; and the nonservice specific Medal of Honor was born at that time. Originally, the Medal of Honor was only to be presented to enlisted men, but on March 3, 1863, this was extended to officers as well. The last action in which the Medal of Honor was awarded was in Mogadishu, Somalia, on October 3, 1993. There have been 3,459 Medals of Honor awarded for 3,453 separate acts of heroism performed by 3,439 individuals, including 9 of which were unknown; and today there are 143 living recipients of the Medal of Honor. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of Sergeant Bill Kendall for designing this flag. He has worked very, very hard to make sure that these folks who have given so much for our country, many times making the supreme sacrifice for the Nation, are so honored. The intention is to have this flag available for their families, for communities who want to honor Medal of Honor recipients so they can continue to show the type of respect for these recipients that is so well deserved. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House today will move on a unanimous basis to have a flag of honor for the Medal of Honor winners. This design is something that Mr. Kendall came up with. It is, I think, extremely well done. We are very, very proud of Mr. Kendall for all his work on this effort. Obviously, the Department of Defense may make some changes as to exactly how they believe the final flag should look. But the need for this is real, for the families, for those individuals who are living today that are Medal of Honor winners; and for the communities to show their pride and respect for these individuals is, in fact, proper. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can move this bill today.