Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inquire, would it be appropriate to recognize the fact that the designer of this flag, Bill Kendall, from Jefferson, Iowa, is in the gallery? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very very much for the opportunity to speak on this farm bill; and I want to give my personal thanks to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for working very, very hard on a farm bill, holding, I think, 47 hearings around the country and for putting forth a strong effort in a very difficult situation. My belief is any farm bill should help the family farm, the medium-, small-size family operator. And it is with great reluctance that I am going to oppose this farm bill because I think this takes us in exactly the wrong direction. This farm bill will hasten the demise of the family farm. It will subsidize the largest producers with an advantage over the medium-small producers, a dramatic advantage. It breaks all of our trade agreements. There is no question that the provisions in this are in direct opposition to what we have stood for as far as free, open trade. There is more money for conservation and environmental portions in this farm bill and those titles. The problem is they are rendered useless because all of the incentives on this farm bill are for more production. And I know farmers. I am one. And we are going to produce every possible bushel that we can to make sure that when these high payments are made that we are going to be able to reap the benefits. So those provisions I think are virtually useless in this farm bill. One provision I think that causes great concern in Iowa is certainly the fact that one of the largest megahog producers, who has been a habitual offender as far as the environment, under this farm bill is going to be eligible and entitled to 450,000 tax payer dollars as a reward for not taking care of the environment. It is with great reluctance that I must oppose this farm bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend the judiciary committee on a job well done and ask for the expedient passage of H.R. 3030, a bill to extend the basic pilot employment verification program. This bill will reauthorize the recently expired program for an additional two years at minimal cost to the government. H.R. 3030 will further the aims of this body by encouraging greater cooperation between industry and the federal government--something I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can support. This program, originally the brain-child of my good friend Representative Ken Calvert, allows eligible employers to use a joint Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)--Social Security Administration (SSA) database to verify that prospective employees are employable under existing law. Furthermore, it has the desirable effect of providing greater ease of verification for employers and greater deterrence to those who would fraudulently use legal documents. Currently used by approximately 1,758 companies in the states of California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Texas, as well as facilities owned by these companies in states not explicitly covered, this program has been beneficial to industries ranging from meat packing to direct mail. As we continue to debate INS reform, I believe it is incumbent upon us that we reauthorize programs that have been successful and recognize these programs as the model for such future efforts.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for those kind words and also want to certainly thank the chairman for doing a fabulous job leading our subcommittee on these very, very important issues and the ranking member and the cooperation that we have on this subcommittee, and certainly the staff did an outstanding job and we really appreciate all of their efforts. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a very broad jurisdiction but extraordinarily important when we talk about our nuclear arsenal, when we talk about research, trying to make America independent in its energy needs. This is the place where that type of research is done, and I am very pleased with the funding levels. We could always find more uses for more money, obviously, but the chairman and ranking member did an outstanding job. I would also like to say that this bill does a lot for Iowa. We have flood control projects in Sioux City, the Perry Creek ongoing project; in Denison, Iowa, where the floods were so devastating in 1993, the levee project there is funded to our request; and a couple of very, very important projects in Fort Dodge, Iowa, the river enhancement, in trying to make sure that that community can handle not only flood control but also have enhancement of the livelihood in Fort Dodge itself; and Webster County with their flood control concerns they have downriver on the Des Moines River. The chairman brought up the issue of the Missouri River. I was somewhat disappointed in the results in this bill. Obviously the special interests upstream, upriver had a major influence, especially in the other body, but I think working in a cooperative basis that we can be successful in the future if we all use some common sense to bring this issue finally to closure so that we can all proceed and not destroy the livelihood and endanger the lives of the people downstream. I again thank the chairman very much for the opportunity and for his great work.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Nation suffered previously unimaginable horrific acts against our Nation's citizens and our democracy, in an attempt to shake our foundation of freedom. As parents, grandparents, and peers we not only see these acts as an attack on our Nation--but also an attack that threatens to shatter the innocence of life as seen by our children. Yesterday, the actions of others crushed this innocence and reminded us that freedom does not come without a cost. As so many American's who have fought for this country already know--freedom is not free. I want to express my condolences and prayers to all of the families and friends who have lost loved ones and to those victims who are fighting to survive their injuries. I also want to ask us all to remember and pray for the dedicated people who have worked and continue to work to recover possible survivors. As a nation of free people we will join together and recover from this tragedy. From the ashes of this tragedy we will rise up and prevail--because in America--every morning has the potential for new and even better beginnings.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I would just like to make a few points here as to why I think this is a really bad idea. Everyone believes that we have to protect the environment. A lot of folks have real concerns about the ozone layer being depleted. If this amendment goes through, we will have additional depletion of the ozone layer. We will put about 593 tons of carbon monoxide into the air every day in California. We will raise the cost of a gallon of gasoline in California 2 to 3 cents with the reformulated gas they are talking about. I think it is actually a matter of fairness. I say to my colleagues, I do not believe that one State should be exempted from the law of the land. A lot of folks here do not have any big problems with national mandates in telling everyone what they can and cannot do at home until it gets to the point where they do not like it themselves. I mean, a lot of the folks here are talking kind of like we will mandate this, but we will not mandate that. Mr. Chairman, it is simply wrong. We have to stop our dependency on foreign oil and this would be a real step backwards if we did this.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Michigan's interest in this matter. I understand there is strong bipartisan support to remedy this inequity in our farm program laws. I support the gentleman's efforts to accomplish this. I am sorry that, because of the legislative nature of this amendment, the bill before us today is not the appropriate vehicle for this provision. However, I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future on this problem, and if the provision is in the Senate bill, we will consider this correction in our conference committee. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. LATHAM. I reserve a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just simply once again state I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, in fact support it, and I would hope we could quickly move to a vote on the issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I would just like to make a couple of points. Number one, these funds are not available to large international corporations. These funds are matched by people like the corn growers, the beef producers, the pork producers, people who care about their product and want to promote their products overseas so that we can expand our exports for the American farmers. There is a prohibition from these corporations who are making corporate welfare out of this. These programs are absolutely essential for the future in agriculture so that we can add value to American agriculture, so that we can go out into the world marketplace and talk about the quality and the supply of good American food products. If anything, Mr. Chairman, we should be increasing these funds. We should be proud of what we stand for in agriculture. We should stand up and say to our American farmers that they do have the best products in the world and we want to go tell the world about it. That is what we need to do is to protect this program. It is not large enough as it is.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. If there are no other speakers, I would make a point of order.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just congratulate the gentleman on the amendment. I rise to simply state that I am not opposed to his amendment.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and very much appreciate him yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for a fair, open rule and for their work. This will bring this bill to the floor in a manner that will open debate and bring out a lot of different points of view. I appreciate it very much. I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for a great job that he has done and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for all the work and cooperation that we have seen on both sides. The staff on this bill has done a tremendous job and their efforts are very much appreciated. This is a bipartisan bill and it is brought to the floor with, I think, agreement that the real needs of the agriculture community, of the people who are needing assistance for food, is met and that it is a bill that I think we can all support in the House. There are a couple items that I am very pleased that were included. One is funding for the National Animal Disease Center in Ames. This is in response to real concerns that we have with foot and mouth disease; mad cow disease; those types of problems that can be devastating to our livestock industry; and also for food safety for Americans. Also, they have increased the funding for the AgrAbility program, something that is very dear to me. What this program does is help people continue to farm even with disabilities, and the level of $4.6 million in this bill for this very important program is very much appreciated. This bill funds our research in a manner that agriculture is desperately in need of, new opportunities, new ways of adding value to our products. The way to do that is through research. So I am very pleased with the emphasis that the chairman has put on research. Also, a key element for the Department is food safety. I am very pleased that the FDA has increased funding of $115 million to a level of $1.18 billion. That is the largest increase in history. The Food Inspection Service has an increase of $25.4 million, raising that total to $720 million, also a very substantial increase to meet the needs that we have to provide not only the best quality food but the safest food anywhere to be found in the world. So, again, I ask Members to support this rule, support this bill. It is good for agriculture. It is good for all of our citizens.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes and that the time be equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill that the committee has presented to the House includes a very carefully balanced recommendation for funding for the Food and Drug Administration, including $27 million for antimicrobial resistance activities. This is an increase of over 70 percent from just 2 years ago, which clearly demonstrates our commitment in this area. The gentleman's amendment proposes to increase funding for certain purposes, but it makes no proposal on where the money should come from. I would like to say that I am very happy that we were able to provide significant increases for the FDA. It is vitally important for that agency to have the resources to perform its public health mission. We were able to provide them the following increases above last year's level: $15 million to prevent BSE, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which is commonly known as mad cow disease; $10 million to increase the number of domestic and foreign inspections, and to expand import coverage in all product areas; $10 million to reduce adverse events related to medical products; $10 million to better protect volunteers who participate in clinical research studies; $9 million to provide a safer food supply; $1.75 million to improve the timeliness of generic drug application review and to provide generic drug education; and full funding of increased payroll costs for existing employees. I want to stress how important this is. In the past, FDA and all other agencies in this bill were forced to reduce the level of services provided to the public in order to absorb payroll increases. This year we want to be sure that does not happen. I am sure that we all want to see that there is no slippage of activities at FDA involving research, application review, inspections, and all of the other payroll-intensive operations that are financed through our bill. We worked hard to find these resources. I am glad we were able to do it, and I am sure FDA will put them to good use. Now here is my point. In the real world, when we go to conference with the other body, the increase that the gentleman's amendment proposes would have to come out of other increases that the committee provided. So where should it come from? Should we reduce FDA's food safety activities? We have heard a number of speeches today that told us not to do that. Should we reduce protection for people participating in clinical trials, or reduce resources for blood safety or BSE prevention? Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to support the committee's recommended increases in FDA. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I ask for its defeat. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) in this issue and his willingness to consider some middle ground on this divisive matter. Our States have so much in common, yet there clearly are differences on this issue. Nonetheless, I do think it is worth considering those areas of the master manual debate where we do agree and work together toward an answer that would satisfy the concerns of upper and lower basin States. I do not expect this to be an easy task as we all know but would welcome the gentleman's input in the process, and I am willing to work with him to consider various options. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. LATHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for having this special order this evening on a very, very important issue, I think, for the whole country. This announcement today really shows the concern and the commitment that this administration has and we all have for our environment. The fact of the matter is, this shows that one does not have to sacrifice clean air to have clean water. The gentleman brought up earlier a discussion on MTBE. We all know that this is a pollutant that has affected our groundwater. Even in Iowa where it has not been used there are traces of MTBE in our water, because it is coming from other States and in the aquifer. This is a very, very important issue for everyone who believes, like we all do, that one has to have clean water. The environment is very, very important. The question today that was answered was, does one have to sacrifice clean air in order to get clean water? Well, the fact of the matter is, one does not. The proof is here today that one can both get rid of MTBE, clean up our water supply, make it safe for our children, for our families, and also have clean air. With ethanol, we are able to provide the oxygenate that is needed for the fuels. In California, MTBEs will be banned, I believe, by 2003. They are going to have to have a replacement. I can tell you, in Iowa we are going to do our part. In particular, just in my congressional district, we currently have five ethanol plants under construction in the planning stage, and are going to be online very, very quickly. The great part of this is, and the gentleman from Minnesota knows this very well, but these are farmer-owned cooperatives, farmer-owned investment groups. This is not some big corporation out here that is going to profit from this. When we talk about value-added products, this is what it is all about. We believe in investment; we believe in adding value to our products that we produce in such abundance, especially in corn, in our part of the country. We will utilize this great crop that we have in a very, very positive and productive way. In addition to the five plants that are coming online in my congressional district, we also have at least another five coming online statewide in Iowa to go along with these seven plants that currently are in operation. I know that the gentleman from Minnesota knows very well what this is going to do for the economy as far as adding value to our corn crop. This, I think, combined with biomass, soy diesel, wind energy, and the President's energy proposal, I think, is right-on as far as what he is talking about with alternative energy sources. When we talk about ethanol, soy diesel, and wind energy, we have the largest wind energy farm in the entire country in my congressional district also. But it is so important that we utilize our resources here, renewable resources, to solve this energy crisis that we are in, and to cut down our dependence, like the gentleman talked about, on foreign oil. I remember very well back in 1973 waiting in line to buy gasoline, if you could buy any at all. Many times the stations were closed. They were simply out of gasoline. At that time, if I remember correctly, we were about 35 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today we are over 60 percent dependent on foreign oil. The problem has gotten only worse, and it has gone on for decades now; but we have not had really an energy policy in place to address this problem. So I think today is a very, very significant step in the right direction: good for the environment, good for reducing our dependency on foreign oil, good for value-added agriculture and for people really pulling together in rural America for a cause and to help themselves. This is extremely positive. Mr. Speaker, one last thing. I think it is so important, and last year we went through a real difficult, very, very close campaign. One of the major issues in that campaign was restoring honesty, integrity, in the Oval Office, having people there who will honestly keep their word. When our President today was a candidate in Iowa, he came to Iowa, and he said, yes, I support ethanol; I support Iowa farmers. I believe they can help themselves and increase their way of life and improve their families' lives, and we will work for you. I had the honor to be the with the President last Friday in Waukee and heard the President then reiterate his support for ethanol and support for family farmers; and, as the gentleman well knows, with the tax bill that he signed last Thursday, it is going to be a giant step forward for people to be able to keep the family farm, to reduce the tax burden on people who work and pay taxes, and families, helping them all the way through. But the thing of it is, many people were cynical. Some of the people who supported the President in the campaign would come up to me and say, Well, he says he is for ethanol, but he is from Texas. You know, the big oil companies down there, they have a lot of influence. You know how many votes there are in California. Well, is he really with us? All I ever said was just watch; that I believe that there is a person with great integrity, with real honor, who is running for the Presidency. I think this shows to all Americans that you do not just have to go out and make campaign promises and not keep your word. It is very important I think in this day of very cynical politics in our system, with people being filled with doubt in our leaders, that we finally have someone who actually has done what he said he was going to do, and a phrase that is very familiar around here, the idea of promises made and promises kept. I am just extraordinarily proud of our President, proud of this administration; and I am so happy for rural America, for Iowa, for all farmers who really want to derive a livelihood from the marketplace with value-added products. This is a great day for all of us. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. As someone who was in 4-H for 9 years and learned a great deal from my activities there, and everybody thinks about 4-H as how to have a project for raising livestock or grains, that type of project, the things that helped me the most in 4-H, we had Carl Rayder, our extension director, used to have special classes for us out in the country and teach us about etiquette: How to eat at a table, how to dress. We had fashion shows. There are a lot of different things that 4-H did in rural America that really helped us along in life. Mr. Speaker, probably the most important thing is the leadership that was taught in 4-H and the opportunity for a young farm kid to be a leader in his 4-H club locally, county-wide, and move on to State offices, things like that were very, very important and meant a great deal to us in 4-H. I am also extremely proud that Clarion, Iowa, which is in my district, is the home of the 4-H emblem; the four-leaf clover with the four H's, one H on each leaf of the clover, obviously, is a sign that is known by everyone as representing the 4-H itself. Mr. Speaker, 4-H has been a very, very positive experience for young people for 100 years now. I want to congratulate them. I do not have to read the 4-H motto. ``I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, my health to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and my world.'' And it means a great deal to a lot of young Americans that we can still do that pledge.