Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just in closing, I think there is a consensus with all of us in trade policy, and it is the debate that we should have. And just in closing, also, I would certainly hope that everyone would support this bill on final passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. MR. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), my colleague, who well knows that more than half of what U.S. farmers and ranchers produce every year is exported somewhere around the world. Without more markets for our farmers to participate in around the world, price improvement in the domestic market is not likely to happen. I appreciate the gentleman's defense of our current farm policy. As we did hearings around the country all spring, members of the Committee on Agriculture from both sides of the aisle, we all heard the same thing from every farmer and rancher in all parts of the country. No one wants to go back to the old farm policy, the old command and control system that we had in this country for some 60 years where the Government decided what we needed and what we did not need. And the fact is farmers like the freedom and the flexibility they have to make decisions about what markets they want to enter and what crops they want to plant on their land. Mr. Chairman, when we started this program some 4 years ago now, no one had the idea that this was going to be an easy transition away from 60 years of the Government making the determination about what ought to be planted and this transition to a more open and more competitive marketplace. And so I congratulate the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I certainly am.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, sure, and I very much appreciate the statement of the gentleman from Florida. I agree, as far as trade relations with China. The administration worked very hard, and I think that is very, very positive. And Congress is not beyond blame, also, in some of the sanctions that were put on. There is no question about that. But the reality is it is more difficult today in many parts of the world to sell our products than it was even 10 years ago. And if we have learned anything in the past decades, it is that using food and medicine as a weapon in foreign policy has never worked. All it does is punish our farmers here. It does not help the people in the countries that we are supposedly punishing. I think the gentleman's point is well taken.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding me this time, and I will not use all of the available time. I just wanted to emphasize the importance of the trade discussion that has been going on here. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) brought up in his statement the idea and the concern that we have as far as opening up trade around the world and relating that to the farm bill. He is correct in exactly that we anticipated some cooperation with the administration when we passed the Freedom to Farm to open up markets. The reality is just the opposite, however. In the past 80 years, there have been 120 sanctions put on other countries. Sanctions is a nice word for an embargo. The fact of the matter is over half of those embargoes have been put on in this last administration. So while we have fought to open up markets, to make sales available to our farmers overseas, it has flown in the face of the administration's policy of continuing and expanding the number of sanctions. I will say again, over half of the sanctions in the last 80 years have been put on in the last 7 years, and it is very, very unfortunate. That is why opening up trade today for Cuba, for North Korea, for Sudan, for Iran, Libya, is so very, very important to change the dynamics of the whole debate here. I think it is imperative that we move forward, that we make sure that we do crack open the door and allow us to sell our products, food and medicine, to these countries who are so much in need.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to stand here in support of this bill. I think this is an effort that obviously under very tight budget constraints the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done an outstanding job, and I want to commend the chairman, a great leader in agriculture, a good friend to all farmers and ranchers and someone who I admire very much personally, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who I have had the pleasure in working with on various issues. This bill, I think, does a lot of very, very good things as far as the farm service agencies. The people in our county offices are under tremendous stress today. The workload is unbelievable that they are having to deal with, and they are on the front line of service to our farmers. I am very pleased that the committee has funded to the President's request, and I think we always have to look at additional funding and directing that funding to the local offices rather than the bureaucracy here in Washington. Agricultural credit programs, $1.475 billion over last year, and this, I think, is very, very positive; rural housing loan authorizations increased by $484 million over last year. As far as Iowa, this is very, very good news for us; and I in particular want to thank the chairman for including $9 million for the National Animal Disease Center to be built in Ames, Iowa. This is a first step to what I think is an extraordinarily important project as far as animal health, as far as disease research, and really as far as protecting our food supply for the public. This is going to go a long ways. The current facility was built back in the '60s. This is a very, very important project for the whole country but in particular for Iowa. To have this centered in Iowa I think is very, very important, which is obviously the center of livestock production, especially in the pork industry. One item, it is a small item, but I think very important to a lot of farmers out there to keep them in agriculture, the AgrAbility program we continue to fund at $3 million. This helps handicapped farmers be able to stay on the farm, be productive, a small program that does so much good for a lot of people who love agriculture, want to stay there. I think this is a very good example of our dollars being used in a very positive way. In closing, again I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). The staff has done an outstanding job.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, while not everyone has said it yet, I think everything that needs to be said on the subject has been said. So at this point I will make a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. The amendment violates clause 2, section C of rule XXI of the House in that it proposes the inclusion of legislative or authorizing language on an appropriation bill. Specifically, the amendment proposes to limit certain expenditures made by the Commodity Credit Corporation where no such limitation exists in current law, instead of confining the amendment's proposed limitation to the scope of funds made available under this act. Additionally, the amendment of the gentleman from Florida contains ``shall not'' language that, on its face, imposes a legislative directive.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Michigan, and like the gentleman was talking about, I, too, visit a lot of senior citizen centers. And also one complicating factor is that my mother attends these on a regular basis, so it becomes quite personal. But I would really like to associate myself with the words of the gentlewoman from Ohio, and her point is exactly right. In the bill this year we do have the flexibility to increase funding for this program by $10 million, which fully funds the President's request for this program. And I think everyone in the House is in full agreement that we need to fund the seniors' feeding programs to the full amount. I think we have done that in the bill. And like the gentlewoman from Ohio, my big problem is that we are taking funds out of an account that is already reduced by $37 million this year. So to cut another $30 million out of this would be extremely harmful, I believe. When we look at PL-480 and the benefits it gives around the world to people who are starving to death, I think it is very, very important. And I think if we talked to most senior citizens, if it meant the difference between 2 or 3 cents a meal, they would also say that people who are dying of starvation probably need as much help as possible, and they would be willing to possibly even forfeit the 2 or 3 cents a meal to make sure that does not happen. Also, I think it is very important that the Members are aware of the people who stand in opposition to this amendment, like The Coalition for Food Aid, and groups such as Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, World Vision, and CARE. All very much oppose this amendment because of the devastating effect it would have as far as their feeding programs around the world. So, Mr. Chairman, while I have great empathy and concern for the seniors' feeding programs, I think with the facts as they are, that we are fully funding the feeding program at the request of the administration for this program, and the detrimental effect this amendment will have as far as our PL-480 programs, food for peace around the world, I must strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her interest in rural housing and her continued strong support for rural development programs. And on behalf of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), our side will accept this amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very, very much. I rise today in support of this very excellent bill under tight budget constraints. I would like to also extend my thanks to the chairman. This is my first term on this subcommittee, and he has done an outstanding job, being actually new to the subcommittee himself. But the learning curve that I have had on this committee has been quite steep; and, with his leadership, it has made it much easier. And also, anyone who knows the chairman, much has been said about the golf, but he attacks his work the same way that he attacks the golf course and never stopping, and we have to be on our toes all the time. I just want to say how much I appreciate his friendship and really the honor of serving here with him. This bill is something under the tight budget constraints, like I said before, with no new starts as far as projects. The chairman is very well aware, and I think the Congress is, that there are scores of billions of dollars that are authorized in projects which are waiting to be started; and because of the tight constraints that we have, it was impossible to have any new starts. I also want to emphasize how important this bill is for the upper Midwest, for the State of Iowa, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, the projects that they have to deal with in my district as far as navigation on the rivers, and what an excellent job I think that they do and the constraints that we have. If I have a disappointment in the bill, it is in the area of renewable energy and as far as biorenewable energy research that I think is so very, very important for the future. Just in closing, again, I want to thank the chairman and extend my gratitude for the great job that he has done.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very, very much. He has been a true advocate for our cause here; and his allowing us to, first of all, put the money into the bill and also support directing these dollars to where they are really going to help veterans I think is so important. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for this amendment and would hope we would be able to pass it by voice vote here today.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I rise in strong support of the Talent-Latham-Filner amendment and hope its passage will happen today. I really want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), a member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, my good friends, for their work in the authorization process for these funds. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has also supported this program by including $4 million for the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Program. This amendment simply designates the $4 million in this program to be used specifically for the National Veterans' Business Development Corporation. These funds will help that corporation establish a cohesive assistance and information network for veteran-owned businesses. These funds will also help the corporation to establish an advisory board on professional certification to work on the problems service members face in transitioning to the private sector workforce. Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our Nation's servicemen and women to make their transition into civilian life much easier. I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, yes. Again, I will restate, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) clearly is aware of the fact that despite any merits, this amendment does not belong on this bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in the pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it directly amends existing law. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to in one way associate myself with a lot of the comments made earlier, in that many of us are very, very frustrated with the lack of effort in the administration to enforce antitrust laws. Money has never been the issue; and in fact, the workload will be reduced 40 percent this next year because of the increase in the level of mergers, where they become subject to antitrust review. So there is 40 percent reduction in work, while there is an increase in both areas referred to today. But the fact of the matter is if you want to look at the problem as far as gas prices, which is a huge problem in my home State, in Wisconsin and Illinois and the whole Midwest and throughout the country, is the fact that the administration has done absolutely nothing as far as any review or stopping any of the mergers. The gentleman spoke about Exxon-Mobile, a huge increase in profits. This Justice Department did nothing to stop it. When you look in agriculture in my home State and the consolidation and what is happening there, the vertical integration, a great concern to my producers out there is, well, will this administration do anything about it? No. And when the Attorney General testified in our subcommittee and I asked her directly several questions back and forth, and she finally threw up her hands and said, ``I don't know what to do.'' This is not a case about money; it is a case about will of enforcement of the law. As long as we have people in this administration who do only pick and choose for other reasons, political reasons, who they go after and who they do not go after, we are never going to have any results on these problems. So I just respectfully say that there is adequate money. With the reduction of the workload that is going to be forthcoming in this next fiscal year, a 40 percent reduction in case load, what we need actually, Mr. Chairman, is the will of someone in the Justice Department to finally stand up and do their job, rather than give a lot of lip service. We are paying for it today with vertical integration in agriculture, and we are paying for it directly at the gas pump every day.

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