Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's timing is absolutely perfect today. At 6:22 this morning, I became a grandfather for the first time. Again, the gentleman's timing is impeccable for Justin and Lynnae, my son and daughter-in-law, and their new baby girl, Emerson Anne. This is obviously a great day. But how appropriate today that we are going to pass the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act and increase that child tax credit for Justin and Lynnae. They have a lot of challenges ahead, and this is going to mean more money in their pockets so that they can help Emerson Anne in her future, to help her grow and be prosperous and have a good education. It is a great day. Again, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's timing is impeccable.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of Wednesday, March 14, 2001, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the following measures:

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just wanted to take a minute, first of all, to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who has had extraordinary wisdom and knowledge and leadership on this bill, and there is no one in the House that I have more admiration for, and I appreciate his very kind consideration and leadership on the committee. It is truly appreciated not only by myself, but by people in my district and in the State of Iowa. Also, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is a very dear friend, and I have the greatest respect for the ranking member and I want to thank him for all his help. If the staff here looks a little sleepy, it is because they probably have not gotten any sleep the last couple of evenings. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very good bill with a lot of work in it. I am, in particular, very appreciative of the fact that we were able to increase funding for the methamphetamine training center in Sioux City, Iowa, to be able to expand that program that has been of vital assistance to local law enforcement throughout the four-State region. It is extremely important, and that great work is going to continue because of this bill. The local law enforcement block grant, which has helped so many of our small communities, which are fighting the battle, in particular in the upper Midwest with methamphetamines today, it is very, very important. The cleanup funds that are in this bill, as far as the labs out there, are extraordinarily important. So I just wanted to thank the chairman and the ranking member, and all of the staff on both sides. I think this is a very, very good bill; and I hope everyone will pull together and pass the bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would just first of all like to say this is extraordinarily unfortunate for the people in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, everyone in the lower Mississippi delta that the President vetoed this bill over the use of the Missouri River. This is an extraordinarily important issue. It goes to saving lives of people who live along the Missouri River, to saving their property. It goes to how much energy, how much electric power is available during the peak season in the summer coming out of the dams upstream. It has to do with usage on the river as far as navigation which they want to dry up the river basically in the summertime. We have a very important issue with recreation in Sioux City, Iowa, using the marina. Mr. Speaker, I will submit a letter from the bipartisan city council of Sioux City in opposition to the President's position. I think this is an issue which is not a partisan issue. This is simply wrong. The President has signed four previous bills that had this provision in it that today he says he vetoes the bill for, and you wonder why. It has to go, I believe, to an extreme environmental position. I think with the Presidential election coming up and the Vice President taking an extreme position here, I think Iowans and people in Nebraska and Missouri should really take a look at who is favoring a radical group over the lives and property of people who live along the river and the very well-being of those people. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate if we have to reopen this bill to find other moneys for some of the priorities the President looked at that we are going to have to look in the bill. We are not going to have new money. We have to look in the bill to find out people, projects, things like that if we are going to fund the new initiatives, also. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the override of this very unfortunate and misguided veto. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record: Office of the City Council, Sioux City, IA, October 3, 2000. U.S. Representative tom Latham, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Latham: One of the issues that we understand you are addressing is the management of the Missouri River. First, we would like to thank you for your previous votes on this issue on behalf of Sioux City and Iowa. We appreciate very much your support and understanding in this issue. What still needs consideration and study is how those changes to the current management may affect Iowans and the downstream states affected by those changes. We thank you for the time and attention you are giving to this matter. There should be a broader perspective on the issue at stake than just recreation versus navigation. Policies developed with much deliberation for over four decades such as this should be approached very carefully. there are industries such as downstream recreation, hydropower generation, agriculture, transportation, and navigation that would be dramatically affected by the plan to implement a spring rise in the spring with correlating low flows during late summer and early fall. There are also issues such as flood control for cities, counties, and farmland along the Missouri River that have not yet been sufficiently studied to assess potential damage and economic impact. Downstream Recreation.--The Sioux City Riverfront Master Plan calls for $8 million in improvements to the City's Marina and riverfront area. The City of Sioux City cannot proceed with economic plans until the full effects of changes to the management of the Missouri River are known. The pulse and character of Sioux City revolves around the river, boating, and water sports. There are also riverboat gambling operations on the Missouri River that generate $80 million to Iowa's state taxes--specifically to fund the recently passed Vision Iowa legislation. Iowa State statute compels riverboats that gamble to sail at least 100 days per year and it is unknown how this will affect their ability to comply with state statute and how that potential loss of revenue would affect Iowa's future. Hydropower Generation.--Under the spring rise plan we would only be able to use approximately 58% of full capacity during the peak energy usage period. All public energy utilities receive a percentage of their energy as hydropower, very inexpensive energy. When there is excess hydropower energy, that power can be marketed to an eager marketplace looking for this lower-cost energy. When the hydropower supply is lower, as is would be in times of low flow, higher cost energy must be used and that extra cost is passed on to consumers. The effect of decreasing hydroelectric supply in a peak usage period with dramatically increased rates needs further study. Flood Control.--While spring rise flows will likely not flood Sioux City at current estimates, the effects of high flows from tributaries will need to be studied before either the City of Sioux City or Woodbury County could endorse the spring rise option. Transportation Costs to Agriculture Industry.--The farm economy is extremely weak, experiencing low prices, increased interest rates than previous years, and high fuel prices. The agriculture industry will take another hit if they lose the ability to haul and store grain and fertilizer, especially at peak harvest periods. The busiest time for agriculture shipments is the exact time that the low flow period in a split navigation scenario would decrease the ability to use the river for transportation and would leave farmers with fewer transportation and storage options. Data taken on corn bid prices from November 10, 1999 shows that corn bid prices range from 13-51 cents more per bushel for sites located near a river when compared with those sites that are landlocked and dependent solely on rail and truck transportation. Navigation on the Missouri River assists farmers with an additional avenue to market and transport their commodities at competitive rates. Industrial Commodities.--It has been proven that there is an economic advantage in industry to have access to both rail and barge transportation. Rail companies charge less, irrespective of distances traveled, if either the initial or final location is near a barge facility, due to the desire to remain competitive with barge rates. These water-compelled rates enable our companies to remain competitive with comparatively much larger operations. These companies would see 50% increase in transportation costs without access to barge transportation and would be ultimately passed on to consumers. Degradation Through High Rises.--The impact on riverbed degradation must be determined before the artificially high flows are implemented as already serious degradation problems will only get worse with the spring rise approach. The high- rise period in 1969-1972 degraded the riverbed by four feet and high rises in 1993-1996 degraded the riverbed by an additional two feet. Further degradation will threaten the under-river utility crossing, continue the current loss of wetland and oxbow lake areas due to drainage into the river, will eventually threaten bank stabilization structures, piers, and abutments, as well as increase the maintenance cost for marinas and boat ramp basins. The City of Sioux City's collector well and possibly two of the radials of that well would be impacted if additional significant erosion or degradation were to occur. Sincerely, Martin J. Dougherty, Mayor. Craig S. Berenstein, Council Member. Todd A. Moss, Mayor Pro-Tem. Tony Drake, Council Member. Thomas R. Padgett, Council Member.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want to publicly say how much I appreciate the great work of our chairman. This will be his last bill as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been just an absolute pleasure and an honor to work with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). I know the gentleman is staying here next year and everything; but because of the rules, he will no longer be chairman of this subcommittee; and I just want to tell him on a personal level how much I appreciate all his hard work and what a great job he has done for New Mexico and for the rest of the country. And to the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), it is a real pleasure and it is fun to work with her with the interest we all have in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, is an excellent appropriations bill. We have been through a very long process throughout the entire year with hearings, listening to the concerns of the people and the agencies, their proposals, expressing concerns at the way management in some of the agencies has taken place and trying to do the best job possible in this bill to address those concerns. The one major concern we have, as far as delivering services in Iowa, and I think throughout the country, is with the FSA offices. This bill increases funding for those people who are at the ground level doing the work out there, actually in contact with the farmers themselves; and these people are working their hearts out in the countryside. There is increased funding in the bill to the tune of $34 million in addition to the $50 million additional to take care of the emergency disaster programs that are also stated in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is an increase as far as our credit programs so that we can continue to use that tool for exports and to make sure that we do try and have opportunities for our farmers to sell their products overseas. Conservation is a huge issue as far as we are concerned in Iowa and throughout the country, and those activities are increased by $53 million in the bill. Food safety is increased by $47.5 million. Funding for the Food and Drug Administration is almost $35 million more than what it was last year, and $89 million basically, with some savings with the President. We are continuing our commitment as far as food and nutrition for our people here, increasing funding for WIC. A very, very important issue for Iowa is the lifting of sanctions in the bill with Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan. With the Cuban issue, it is a major breakthrough for us to finally have that door at least cracked open so that we have an opportunity to sell into that market, and to also look to these other new markets that we have and be able to use credit here in the U.S. to go into highly populated countries, like North Korea, Iran, and these other countries that offer so much potential for us. I am not totally comfortable with all the provisions in here. I would like to see opening of travel and things like that, but we at least have a breakthrough as far as this issue is concerned. I think we can advance the idea that through openness, through trade, we can change countries and have them come into the democracy, which we all very, very much want. Again, I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the sponsor of H.R. 1042, the Drug Dealer Liability Act, to urge your strong support for this important legislation. This is not the first time we have addressed this issue. You may recall the House voted overwhelmingly to add the very provisions included in this legislation to the Juvenile Justice Bill in 1999. Unfortunately, juvenile crime is a growing trend across the nation. For years, the rural states thought themselves immune from the serious juvenile crime and drug problems on America's coasts and in the big cities. However, this is no longer the case. In fact, nowhere is the juvenile crime problem growing faster than in America's heartland. This is, of course, directly related to the incredible growth in drug use. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's latest statistics, juvenile drug arrests across the nation have more than doubled since 1988. My home state of Iowa is experiencing an unprecedented influx of methamphetamine. In calendar year 1999, there were over 300 federal methamphetamine lab seizures in the State of Iowa. State law enforcement personnel seized an additional 500 labs during that same time. Clearly, our children are the most innocent and vulnerable of those affected by illegal drug use. The very nature of drug abuse makes this an epidemic that has severe monetary costs as well, creating significant financial challenges for parents, law enforcement and human services providers. For many of the juvenile addicts, who are increasingly female, the only hope is extensive medical and psychological treatment, physical therapy, or special education. All of these potential remedies are expensive. In fact, recent figures estimate the annual cost of substance in the United States to be nearly $100 billion. Juveniles, through their parents or through court appointed guardians, should be able to recover damages from those in the community who have entered and participated in the sale of the types of illegal drugs that have caused their injuries. The legislation I am offering today would provide a civil remedy for people harmed by drugs--whether it be the actual user, the family of a user or even the hospital that provides treatment--to hold drug dealers accountable for selling this poison that is tearing apart the fabric of our society. There are drug pushers in all of our congressional districts who profit from this culture of death, pain and dependency that must be taken to task. Many of them elude the authorities by getting off on technicalities or through their position as affluent persons in the community. However, that should not make them immune from paying for the destruction they cause. This legislation would empower victims to take action like the Utah housewife who sued her husband's drug dealer ``friend'' of six years under that State's drug dealer liability law. Her husband actually shared a vacation cabin with the dealer until, after years of abuse, her husband lost his job and ruined the family. Other states, such as California, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Hawaii, South Dakota and Oklahoma, and just October 1, Maryland have enacted similar laws. The first lawsuit brought under a state drug dealer liability law was brought by Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services on behalf of a drug-addicted baby and its siblings. The suit resulted in a judgment of $1 million in favor of the baby. The City of Detroit joined in on the suit and received a judgment for more than $7 million to provide drug treatment for inmates in the city's jails. This legislation, while not as comprehensive as those state laws-- which incorporate a broad reaching liability--does provide a simple tool to empower victims. In fact, this legislation is perfectly suited to go after the ``white collar'' drug dealers who's clientele includes their professional ``friends'', and who are less likely to be the subject of a criminal investigation. As we all know, parents who abuse drugs are more likely to have children that abuse drugs as well. It is my hope the prospect of substantial monetary loss made possible my legislation would also act as a deterrent to entering the narcotics market. Dealers pushing their poison on our children and other family members may think again when they consider that they could lose everything even without a criminal conviction. In addition, this legislation would establish an incentive for users to identify and seek payment for their own drug treatment from those dealers who have sold drugs to the user in the past. While this legislation is not meant to be a ``silver bullet'', it is another tool to combat and deter drug abuse and trafficking. Current law allows for a producer of a product that injures a consumer to be held liable for injuries resulting from the use of that product. However, most states do not provide for compensation from persons who cause injury by intentionally distributing illegal drugs. The Latham Drug Dealer Liability Act fills the gap to make drug dealers liable--under civil law--for the injuries to the victims of drugs. Finally, I hope that I will be able to work with Chairman McCollum and the ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, on a more comprehensive liability measure in the future. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1042, the Drug Dealer Liability Act, and give the victims of illegal drugs an opportunity to hold the dealers of this poison accountable under criminal and civil law. The Latham Drug Dealer Liability Act According to a joint study by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and the University of Maryland, drug abuse cost the United States $98 billion in 1992. The majority of the costs were due to drug-related illnesses, lost productivity, crime and premature death. It's time drug dealers started paying for these costs. The Latham amendment would be most effective in instances where a dealer has gotten off in criminal court on a technicality. A plaintiff would only need to provide that there is a preponderance of evidence that a defendant was the dealer in a civil case, unlike the much stricter standard in criminal court. The success of this strategy is well demonstrated by the civil case brought against O.J. Simpson by the family of victim Ron Goldman. The amendment could also prove effective against professionals dealing to their ``friends'' who they share a professional relationship with, such as lawyers, stockbrokers, and other high-income users. People who think our nation's drug problem exists only in the cities and among the poor are way off the mark. The problem is everywhere, as much in small towns in Iowa as it is in America's big cities. The Latham amendment would even be useful in cases where the dealer has already been convicted. According to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June of 1999 (U.S. v. Bajakajian), certain seizures by the government may be ruled unconstitutionally disproportional under the Eight Amendment's excessive fines clause. This could mean that a convicted drug dealer or manufacturer may maintain a portion of their assets and/or property after a government seizure or forfeiture. As an excessive fine is defined in U.S. v. Bakajian, the case sets a Constitutional precedent in this area for the first time. It certainly opens up the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment up for what could be construed as a stricter application.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in congratulating the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Packard), our subcommittee chairman, on a great job this year. It is only indicative of the job he has done for so many years in this Congress, and I think we all know that he will be sorely missed next year. I would like to just address one issue that is in this bill that is of extreme importance to Iowa and the States along the Missouri River. Apparently, the President and the Vice President have threatened a veto over this issue. Mr. Speaker, this has to do with the Missouri River flow. Mr. Speaker, apparently our memories are very, very short. No one is going back to 1993 with the tremendous flooding that we had in the Midwest. At that time, if the policies that President Clinton and Vice President Gore wanted to put in place had been in place, we would have dramatically increased the amount of flooding along the Missouri River, all the way down to the lower Mississippi River basin. This is a direct threat to the lives and property of people who live along the Missouri River. It is extraordinary that when the Vice President comes out of Iowa and asks for our support, or Nebraska, or Missouri, or any of the States below the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, that he would want to compound a tremendous flooding potential. It is not only a matter of lives and property; it is a matter of economic necessity that we maintain navigation on the Missouri River. It is going to dramatically increase the cost to agriculture as far as our inputs are concerned, and it is going to dramatically reduce the price even further of our grains as we try to export them down the river. What it is going to do is make the railroads absolutely king, with no competition in the upper Midwest. One other issue that is not talked about is the reduced generating power of the dams upstream during the low flow that they are proposing in the middle of the summer. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of life, property, economic viability for anyone along the Missouri River or the lower Mississippi. It is something that is wrong in their position, and we have to maintain the position that is in the bill. And I would really ask anyone, when the Vice President comes out and asks for support, how he can put the lives of our citizens in jeopardy by supporting this outrageous proposal that they are threatening a veto over.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and to just maybe clarify some of the statements made earlier. The funding that was put in the supplemental was for hurricane damage. These are real emergencies. It has gone on now about a year, and without a vehicle to help the people out there that were so devastated last year. I just want to remind the House also, the $15 billion bill that went through, that is spread out. The crop insurance portion of it is spread out over 5 years, and the intention is to have a crop insurance program in place policy-wise and funding-wise that is going to actually help farmers manage risk. I think we have an extremely good product, and farmers will now have a vehicle where they can insure both price and yield risk, and hopefully the dependency for additional supplementals will be curbed dramatically in the future with that type of program in place. Also for livestock producers, it has a plan in there so that they can also cover both fatality and price risk. So while I do not disagree with the intention of the gentleman, I think that we need to maintain fiscal sanity around here, but I have also heard over the 3 days of debate on this bill how this bill is currently underfunded to begin with. I think, like the gentleman from Wisconsin said, there are very vital services that are in this bill that would be dramatically harmed and programs that would be dramatically harmed with this type of cut. I will say in reference to concern about the current farm policy that I do not know how one can say that our current farm bill really is responsible for the Asian financial collapse, where most of our major customers of the world have not been able to buy our products in the past few years. Fortunately, the economy in those areas is rebounding. Hopefully, the future will be better. I do not know how one can say anything about farm policy being the cause for 3 years of record worldwide production and surpluses. That simply is not the cause of what the price situation is as far as our grains are concerned, certainly. Also when one looks at what our export policy is with the embargoes that we have on 40 percent of the world's population today, they are totally wrong and also have a great effect as far as the prices we see in agriculture. So while I will match my record with anyone as far as being fiscally responsible here, I think this is ill conceived, will do a great amount of damage, and I would certainly hope that the House would reject it.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify something that was just previously said. McDonald's does not get a dime of money, Tyson Food does not get a dime of money, the Sunkist Corporation does not get a dime of money. That is old news. As I mentioned earlier, this has been reformed. The only thing we are promoting here are the products themselves. No brand names. No corporate brand names. So that argument is totally bogus. I want every Member to understand that. This promotion goes to promote pork, to promote eggs, to promote beef, soybeans, corn, whatever. There is no McDonald's, there is no Sunkist, there is no Tyson. And for someone to say that is totally erroneous, and I want to just clarify that for the House.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The MAP program is something that works. It not only enables our products to be sold overseas and to be promoted over there, but we have to keep in mind that any dollar spent in the MAP program are matched by the commodity groups themselves. So if one is a pork producer, one puts one's dollars in the program. If one is a corn or soybean producer or beef producer or rice, whatever product it is, one has to match those funds. It is extraordinarily important that we maintain the market access and to promote our products overseas and to show the world the quality products that we have in America and to find markets for our products overseas. The MAP program in years past had some problems with it. It has been reformed. It is not putting any particular hamburger brand or something promoting those type of products overseas. These are commodities that are being promoted overseas. It is extraordinarily important that we maintain this program. I would just like to say also, the gentleman on an earlier amendment talked about the assistance that is needed for agriculture and the payments and the emergencies and all of that. Well, this will go farther to help us avoid those types of problems in the future than probably any other program. At a time when especially in the Southeast Asian market where they are recovering, we need to be there promoting American agricultural products so that we can regain the share of market that was lost before when they went through their financial crisis. So just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge Members to defeat this amendment. It is very important for American agriculture to maintain this very small assistance for our farmers.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, what amendment are we debating?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman that the problem was at that time that not all of the losses in the agriculture sector were known. If we talk to the Members from North Carolina, from the South who were dramatically affected, there are additional costs, and I think there was $210 million in the supplemental to address those issues that were not addressed previously. Again, I agree with the gentleman that we have to make sure that we keep a handle on spending, but certainly there was a real emergency and there continues to be because a lot of needs were not addressed previously. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I too wanted to compliment the chairman from New Mexico on a great job on this bill. I think we will have a few more amendments, maybe in a few minutes here, but the gentleman from Wisconsin brought up a couple of points I wanted to speak to. This is an appropriations bill. This is not policy. We are funding the policy that has been set by the Congress. I think there are a lot of things we can do to improve the future for our farmers; work harder on conservation to continue those efforts. I also think, as far as the livestock disease center that is going to be going into central Iowa, that that is going to be very, very important funding in this bill as far as the beginning of that process. So I think this is a good bill. Obviously, we have very tight budget constraints that we are working under. But we also have to look at the fact that 5 years ago we had projected deficits of $200 billion or more as far as the eye could see. It has been only with some fiscal restraint in this House that we have been able to talk about surpluses and talk about returning some money back to the people out there who work so hard to earn the money that we spend here every day. And it is very important that we spend that money wisely and just do not open the checkbook up or we will be back in the same kind of deficit situation we were previous to this. We have to look, as far as farm policy, I think, with open eyes about looking at relief as far as taxes, estate taxes, for our farmers. We have to look at our trade policies, the sanctions. It is unfortunate but it is true that the language that was the authorizing language in this bill for Cuba and Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea was stricken from the bill. It will be done this year. We are going to crack that door open as far as lifting sanctions. But what we have to do is look at the rest of the sanction policy that we have, not only with the administration but with the Congress itself. We have got to learn someday that using food and medicine as weapons in foreign policy does not work. They never punish the people that they are intended to punish. What we end up doing is hurting producers who are trying to sell into those markets. We put sanctions on countries with the idea of somehow hurting them, and all we do is hurt the poor people in those countries by depriving them of the availability of food and medicine. We have also got to look at the regulatory situation we have in agriculture. As someone who lives on a farm, I understand that in northwest Iowa we have a lot of flat lands, they call them prairie potholes, and yet the bureaucrats here in Washington somehow believe that that is wetlands like they would envision them to be along the coast of the United States. It is not. We may have an eighth of an acre in the middle of a 240-acre field, and somehow that has to be protected, yet it is farmed every year anyway. We have somehow got to make a determination in agriculture who has jurisdiction. Farmers have to deal with four Federal agencies today as far as wetlands regulations: USDA, Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA; and it is simply not working. They never get a straight answer from anyone. So, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that need to be done, we have to look at policy down the road, but again this bill is an appropriations bill. I think with the dollars we were given, the chairman did a fantastic job. And I also want to compliment the ranking member, who is not here, but compliment her also for the great cooperation. It is a real honor and privilege to serve on this subcommittee. Amendment Offered by Mr. Boyd

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New York. I would really like to associate myself with his remarks and remember that we are trying to encourage our farmers to diversify, to find new crops, new ways of generating income in rural America; and also, I will tell my colleagues as a member of the Commerce-Justice- State subcommittee, I find it interesting that we give microloans all over the world; and yet we will not help our local rural communities to develop small businesses just like we do all across the world. So I would hope that while I understand the gentleman's concern from Colorado, I would certainly hope that this very small program, which I think does some good and will do some good, would be able to continue. I urge a no vote.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee, I think we can all agree that people in rural America are going through some very hard times. The purpose of the agritourism program is to offer our rural communities another way of developing their economic potential. This bill supports a number of economic development programs in rural America. It offers loans and grants for cooperatives and small businesses, and it supports basic infrastructure that rural communities need to survive. The money for agritourism is just one more part of that effort. Mr. Chairman, this program has strong bipartisan support on the committee. It does not earmark the money for any particular State or community. All rural areas are eligible for the funding. I ask my colleagues for their support for economic opportunity for rural America and to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. I guess, first of all, as a farmer myself and someone who grew up on a family farm now and in the fifth generation over 110 years, the idea that somehow farmers are not concerned about the environment, about maintaining the land and the quality of their environment is simply outrageous, and to me is very, very offensive. We are the ones who, in my family, drink out of the well where the water, where the runoff is going to go. We are the ones who have to live in this environment, and it is the most important. It is our biggest asset as farmers to maintain the quality and the land itself and the clean environment. It is very personal and very real to anyone who lives on a farm like I do. I will also tell my colleagues as someone who strongly believes in trying to preserve the family farm that these new regulations are not going to harm the big mega hog lot producers, the big mega cattle producers, chicken producers, those folks are already in compliance with every new regulation that is being proposed. It is not going to cost them one more dime to comply with these regulations. What it is going to do, Mr. Chairman, is bust the small family farmer out there who cannot afford to comply with these regulations. We talk about concentration in agriculture, about doing away with the family farm, then we have bureaucrats here in Washington who want to put regulations who are only going to hurt the little guy. Let us not forget about what this is about. The big mega hog lots are already in compliance with these regulations. It is not going to hurt them a bit, but it is going to kill the family farmer out there. That is what is so outrageous about this whole idea and about the USDA basically backing off and saying okay, you go ahead, put mandates on small family farmers, let the other folks go as they are.

Mr. LATHAM. Certainly, after the chairman has ruled, any Member has the opportunity to strike the last word.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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