Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, the distinguished chairman.

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Commerce, Justice, State bill, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, as this bill addresses so many of the priorities that are very, very important to all Americans. This bill covers, I think, the broadest jurisdiction of an appropriations bill that we will address this year. I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our great chairman, for the tremendous job that he has done the last 4 years that I have been on this subcommittee and how sensitive and responsive he is and his staff are to my concerns and the concerns of the people in the district, and, also, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) who started in this subcommittee this Congress and has learned very, very quickly and is really a tremendous asset, and we thank him and his staff for all their hard work. We have real problems in my part of the country, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) referred to it also as far as the meth problem. This bill really addresses what is an epidemic from the Upper Midwest with the methamphetamines that are coming in basically from the Mexican cartels, through California, up through the borders and is having such a dramatic effect on Iowans and especially our young people today. In 1999, the DEA seized 400 meth labs in the State of Iowa. The Iowa Department of Public Safety seized an additional 500 meth labs. What people should keep in mind is that this is about 10 percent of the amount of meth that is coming into the district and into the State. This is why we have to focus on these problems, and this bill does this. There are $523 million for local law enforcement block grants, $552 million for the Byrne, local law enforcement assistance grant program. The Community Oriented Policing Services is funded at $595 million, including $45 million which is targeted in places like Sioux City, Iowa with the Tri-State Drug Task Force that is doing such an outstanding job today on this problem that we are experiencing. In Iowa, as well as the rest of the country, we are experiencing real problems that I am sure this will be discussed a great deal with the INS, the fact that, last year or the last 5 years, they have released 35,000 criminal aliens into the general population. This is absolutely outrageous. People convicted of crimes, aliens of this country, and they are released into our population. The failure to bring integrity into the system as far as naturalization and the benefits process that we have throughout the country. The problem that we have as far as pending applications in the past year has increased from $2.1 million to $2.7 million. We have an INS that simply cannot handle the responsibilities. We are, in fact, putting more and more money into this agency to try and solve these problems. But many of us believe that it is systemic in the agency itself and question, quite honestly, the competency of the leadership in that agency. But we are doing everything possible to make our immigration services work as they should. It certainly is not a case of enough dollars going into it, as those budgets have been dramatically increased, at least in the 4 years that I have been on the subcommittee. Just in closing, I would again express my strong support for this bill to thank, again, the chairman and his staff for the tremendous job and the responsiveness and the sensitivity to the issues that are before us. I think it is an excellent bill. It can, maybe, be made even better later on. But certainly, under the restrictions we have, we are doing an outstanding job.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for H.R. 4444, a bill to extend normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. As you know, the congressional district I represent is located in Northwest Iowa. It is one of the most productive agriculture areas in the country and I am very proud of the fact that we export out products all around the world. We are in the process of debating probably the most important issue facing this Congress this session. This is a debate that challenges us to engage the international marketplace, or to hide behind our borders. I believe that trade is an integral part of our foreign policy. The more our two nations interact in the marketplace, the greater potential there is for our two peoples to communicate on other issues that will foster democracy and promote values that honor and respect the basic freedoms that we take for granted here in the United States. In addition, China's $1.2 billion people represent a huge market for American agriculture and manufactured goods and services. Already, China is the sixth-largest market in the world for American agricultural products. The USDA projects that China will account for over one-third of the growth in U.S. agricultural exports over the next decade. It is my opinion, and those of many of my constituents, that Iowa is better off with a Chinese market economy that plays by WTO rules and is subject to a binding WTO dispute settlement process. We need to work with the Chinese to end export subsides and quotas that harm Iowa farmers and those throughout the country. Under the WTO agreement, China will lower its tariffs on beef, and pork by 2004. Furthermore, these tariff reductions will enable Iowa's corn growers and over 18,000 hog producers greater access to this important market. In the end, this debate is not about how much product we sell to China. it is about how we interact with the global community and how we shape the future. Trade will no doubt help both our great countries prosper, but in the end it will have a much more profound effect by forging a relationship that will ensure cooperation and open up Chinese society to new ideas. That is an investment worth making.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of normalizing trade in China.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the War Against Methamphetamine Act introduced today by our colleague from California (Mr. Calvert). In the upper Midwest in Iowa, there has simply been an explosion of methamphetamines that is affecting our young people, our families, our communities, and being the most destructive element that we have seen in many, many years. There are four legs to fighting this problem. One is for interdiction, another enforcement, education, and then treatment. What this bill does is gives us the tools to help with enforcement by increasing penalties for those selling, by making sure that we are able to track people who are making the drugs, and by increasing penalties to those who are causing tremendous environmental damage with the labs that are being put in place to make this horrible drug. This is a great measure to move us forward in this great battle, and I would hope the entire House will join in supporting this measure.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we are starting March Madness, and there is something exceptional happening in the State of Iowa. I want to congratulate the Drake Women's Basketball team for making the tournament, but what is really happening in Iowa is the fact that both the Iowa State University Men's and Women's Basketball teams not only won the regular season championship in the Big 12, but each of them also won the Big 12 tournaments over the weekend. This is unprecedented in the Big 12. The Iowa State Women have had a tremendous year. They are going to host the tournament at Ames; and we wish them the very, very best. The Iowa State Men at the beginning of the season some people even rated them as being at the bottom of the Big 12 this year. In fact, they came through with an outstanding phenomenon performance and not only won, as I said before, the regular season but won the tournament; and I want to congratulate Marcus Fizer as the Most Valuable Player. This is a great thing that is happening in Iowa. Minneapolis is going to look like Iowa State Cyclone country this weekend when the Iowa State Men go up there to play in the first round of the tournaments. Both coaches, Bill Fennelly and Larry Eustachy, have done a fabulous job this year. And I just want to send my congratulations to Iowa State, the great performance they have had. I wish them the best of luck in the tournaments. No matter what happens, they will have given Iowa State fans across this country something really to cheer about. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is go Cyclones.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. This is a supply and demand situation, where if they buy them individually, the cost is so much higher. I think that is one of the reasons we have to look at some of the plans that are out there, and look at the hard and real facts of what does it cover. In 1995, the average cost for a senior in America for drug coverage was about $500. That was the extent of all the drugs that they purchased. But more importantly, we are faced with a situation of trying to integrate what we are here trying to put together in with every State who takes care of the poorest seniors. Somewhere between 58 and 100 percent of those in poverty are currently under Medicaid plans. Those Medicaid plans will be affected by what we do. We have to make sure this is integrated into it. The President made a proposal earlier this year. In the President's proposal, the same 135 percent of poverty are covered, just like we talked about the need to cover them. After that, individuals are asked to pay 50 percent of every dollar that they spend after they buy a premium, an insurance policy. The co-pay is 50 percent. There is no insurance product in the marketplace today like that, nor is there one that anybody would buy. Let me give one figure. On $1,100 worth of drugs under the President's plan, in the year 2002 the benefit, the benefit for the senior would be $197.60. Eight hundred and two dollars of the $1,100 worth of drugs would be out-of-pocket costs by that senior. What an incredible challenge for anybody to buy into.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I just rise in support of the rule and, as a cosponsor of the bill, obviously for passage of this. I really believe that we are on a very slippery slope when we look at the sanctity of life and the quality of life, and it is a very personal issue with me. I have an 87-year-old father who has advanced Alzheimer's; and as my colleagues know, we could question what the quality is or what the value of that life is, but to my mother who has been married, they have been married for 61 years, and that is her life every day, is to go to the home, visit my father, and there is extraordinary quality there. And my parents have worked very, very hard all of their lives, and they are fortunate that they have enough money saved up that they are able to pay for their care. I am very concerned that on this slippery slope, if we have the opportunity for a third person to make decisions, life and death decisions for folks, who is going to live and who is going to die in the case of my father as an example. My father is able to pay for his care. If we have a third person, a bureaucrat who is making a decision for a ward of the county or of the State, what is their decision? I think we have to look very, very closely at the direction we are heading in this country. This bill allows my father, if he were to go into pain, have real problems, to get that kind of treatment. But it is wrong, it is very wrong, for someone else to make that decision to take his life and for other motivations that may be outside of his own well-being, obviously. So again, on a very personal level I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky very much for yielding me this time. First of all, I just want to give my most sincere thanks to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for a tremendous job, and compliment, I think, the best staff in Washington on this subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that people try to politicize this bill because it is so important what this bill accomplishes as far as I am going to focus mostly on law enforcement. But when we look at the Commerce, Justice, Justice Department, the State Department, the Supreme Court, Judiciary, it is an extraordinarily important and wide-ranging bill. I would hope that we would not politicize this bill. I want to particularly point out the funding in Iowa in my district for the Meth Training Center in Sioux City that has been such a tremendous success to fight this major problem that we have in the upper Midwest, funding in this bill for video conferencing so that local communities can contact directly with the INS to get verification of identification of people they may suspect of being illegal, funding for the tri-State drug task force for local law enforcement for all the overtime hours that they put in in this great war we have on drugs today. I want to stand in strong support of the local law enforcement block grants, the $523 million which is included in this bill. This allows my communities, my small communities, to get the resources they so desperately need for equipment, for computers, for radios, for bulletproof vests. This is the only way for these small communities, and I come from a town of 153 people. We need this kind of help in the local law enforcement battle that we are fighting with the drug problem and with criminals throughout the country. This is essential. I compliment the committee. Also, the truth in sentencing block grants for the State are extremely important. Again, I want to compliment the chairman, the ranking member, and the great staff.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, there have been some people saying on the floor here that this is a cynical effort to embarrass the President. Well, if the President's own proposal is an embarrassment to him, so be it. I will tell my colleagues one thing that is absolutely cynical as a representative from a farm State in Iowa where we have a tremendous amount of livestock producers is the fact that the President has three additional taxes that he is putting on farmers at a time when they are in desperate needs, and he is sitting down here with an appropriations bill on his desk and will not sign it to help the farmers. First of all, he has got a $9 million new fee for livestock producers, then he has got a $19 million new fee to be paid by grain farmers who are experiencing the lowest prices in history, and then, to top it off, the icing on the cake is a $504 million tax increase on pork producers and cattlemen and poultry producers, to come right out of their hides at a time of record low prices. It is cynical of the President to try and put our farmers out of business with these new taxes.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had intended today to be on the floor in support of the amendments by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). And the reason being because of a situation we have with OPIC and one of its customers who has over the past several years paid premiums of over $20 million who has a rightful claim and is having a very difficult time collecting. As any business would know, when they buy insurance, they expect to have their claims paid on a timely basis when the facts are laid out. And that simply is not the case. The timeliness of the situation and the second Terry amendment having to do with concerns that have become I think very real, other departments interfering in the situation and for outside political reasons it is being held up as far as the payment of the claim itself, there is no question of the validity. But it is a matter of the technicalities going through the delays in place. As someone who has in the last 5 years always supported OPIC, it is a very great concern to me to see this happening to what I think is a very important agency, one that provides an outstanding financial potential. But when we have agencies coming into play introducing outside political consequences to the equation and not looking at the claim and its validity itself, it raises great grave concerns as far as I am concerned. I just wanted to make that statement. I would support both of the Terry amendments and would oppose the gutting amendments offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the agriculture appropriations conference agreement. This agreement will keep America's family farms afloat, fund critical research and protect the environment in some of our most fragile regions. Furthermore, this legislation includes language that dramatically improves competition for livestock producers. Thanks to the cooperation of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and determined colleagues in the Senate, in the other body, we were able to include mandatory price reporting for livestock in this package. This legislation will contribute to our efforts to revive the current farm economy. As anyone in Iowa can tell you, the difficulties associated with low grain prices have been compounded by low livestock prices to a devastating level last December and January. Today, America's farmers want to know if they are receiving fair compensation for their hard work. With this agreement, we have made the first step in assuring that they can. It is important that accurate information be available to the livestock industry in order for competitive markets to function properly. Without this pricing information, we risk supporting a business environment that gives too much control to a few. We cannot allow our Nation's farmers to be left without the tools they can use to make sure they receive the best possible price for their livestock. It is important to note that mandatory price reporting language included is the result of significant negotiations and represents a concerted effort to find consensus. Title 9 of the bill is identical to legislation that was ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on July 29, 1999. The intent of these provisions and their attendant legislative history are explained in detail in that committee's report on the reported bill, S. 1672, and Senate Report 106-168. Much of the language in this report was also the subject of painstaking negotiations and represents the consensus of a number of parties interested in mandatory price reporting legislation. I join all of these interested parties in directing the Department of Agriculture and the administration generally to this document for use in the correct interpretation and administration of this important law. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important provision, and this bill does truly address as best we can under the budget constraints that we have the real problem we have in agriculture today, trying to get in a very timely manner dollars in the hands of farmers who so desperately need it. I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, the staff on the subcommittee and my personal staff for doing an outstanding job. There are problems obviously, but a lot of the issues that were not addressed should never be on this bill to start with.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate the Committee on Agriculture, which, as the chairman mentioned, I was a former member of. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), have really done an outstanding job on this bill, and also the subcommittee of jurisdiction I think has done an outstanding job. I just wanted to make a couple of comments. We have had a pilot project, or pilot plan, in Iowa for the past several years, using the revenue assurance model. And the farmers that have used the program have found it extremely beneficial in managing their risk. And when we talk about weather-related problems, such as an individual farm hail storm, a lot of times emergency bills do not cover an isolated area that has either some small flooding or hail storms. This allows the individual farmer to manage his risk. And, also, with the revenue assurance, it allows that individual to manage the price risk. As we all know, we are going through right now an emergency supplemental for agriculture, which is very much needed, but in the long run we have to find ways for farmers to manage their risk, both price and production risk. This is what this bill is all about. It is extraordinarily positive. There are problems in areas where they have had disasters over a number of years that they have not been able to purchase insurance. It has been too expensive to justify purchasing the insurance. And I believe this bill will go a long ways towards solving those problems, making revenue assurance available for all producers throughout this Nation. It is an extremely positive step forward, and I just want to compliment everyone on the committee for their great work. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) International Association of Firefighters Sponsoring Visit of Children who are Burn Victims

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 431, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Stenholm

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this debate really, let me assure my colleagues, is not about the attributes of the volunteers at home who do good work, I believe, for their clients who need their assistance. This debate is all about integrity. This debate is all about honesty. Let me give my colleagues a little bit of background of what happened this year. I had an individual come to my office who worked for Legal Services to explain to me, because of my position on this subcommittee on appropriations that funds Legal Services, exactly what had happened in 1997 and 1998 and exactly what had happened when we were going through the process last year of appropriating additional dollars for Legal Services. This individual, who happened to be in part working with the Inspector General at Legal Services and with the Inspector General at Legal Services, had audited five different agencies, local agencies, and found that they had overreported their cases in those five by 90,000 cases. If anyone will remember the debate last year on Legal Services about how many times people would stand up here and say that Legal Services did 1.9 million cases last year and this justifies our appropriation. So after this individual, who was with the Inspector General, came to my office to tell me what had happened, we ordered a GAO report to look at just six more local agencies. When they looked at those six agencies, they found that another 75,000 cases were falsely reported. So in total now, Mr. Chairman, we are up about 165,000, 170,000 cases, or 50 percent of the total cases reported by these 11 agencies. Now, the question is, should they have told us last year before we made the appropriation for Legal Services that their numbers were totally bogus? They say, ``No, we don't have any cause to report to you on a timely basis.'' I would respectfully submit the fact that under the Inspector General statute, they in fact were required to report to Congress and the Legal Services board was required to report to us exactly the phony numbers that they had derived and that they put to Congress. And when they were questioned during the appropriations process, they continually denied that they had held back this information until in fact I was able to lay the facts out. We wonder why this would happen. The reason is, Mr. Chairman, the Inspector General at Legal Services, which the board admitted to the committee, said that his job was in jeopardy, and in fact what happened, he did not report to Congress as it is stated in statute that he has to if there are dramatic changes, he did not, because he was afraid of losing his job at Legal Services. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is not about what Legal Services does. This is about integrity and honesty to Congress. Every Member here should show the disdain toward Legal Services which they showed toward you as a Member of Congress, to flat out come to us with false numbers and then say once again, ``No, these are true'' until they were presented with the facts and then they say, ``Well, wait a minute, it doesn't matter what we said, because our appropriation isn't based on that, anyway.'' This is a personal affront to every Member of Congress. If you believe that Congress can now go forward and talk to any other Federal agency and say that they have to be accountable but say to Legal Services, ``It doesn't matter what you tell us because it's okay because you have a role that people like, that you're helping poor people, so it's okay no matter what you tell Congress to justify the money.'' Mr. Chairman, that is what it is about. It is about honesty and integrity. I personally have supported Legal Services in the past. You can check my record. I have voted to increase funding. But I will not do so this year. The reason is, because I will not be insulted once again.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill for this next fiscal year. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of our subcommittee, has worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to craft a bill that I think properly reflects this Congress' priorities, particularly in the area of law enforcement. Each year there are new and greater challenges confronting law enforcement officials throughout this Nation. In order to be successful, Federal, State and local law enforcement need to work together in a coordinated effort to combat criminals that are increasingly better organized, more lethal and more technologically advanced. To assist local law enforcement in every Members' districts, this bill once again provides $523 million in local law enforcement block grants that the administration, again this year, tried to eliminate in its budget submissions. In my home State of Iowa, like many States throughout the Midwest and the West, it has become inundated with the methamphetamine production and trafficking. In fact, the tri-state Siouxland region of Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota has become the meth distribution center of the country, where the drug costs up to $30,000 a kilo. According to DEA officials, more than 20 Mexican organizations run operations in this region and supply 90 percent of Iowa's meth. This is no happenstance. These people actually sat down, set up a marketing plan in the U.S., targeted the upper Midwest, and are executing this marketing plan with this poison to our families and our children. Mr. Chairman, even though we have the cartels active in the area, domestic producers are also a very significant problem. In 1994, Iowa law enforcement officials seized one clandestine meth lab. In 1996, it had risen to 10. Despite the increased awareness of the problem, this year in Iowa we will have over 300 meth labs seized in the State. The bill before us today provides greater resources for the DEA to focus on the meth epidemic in America's heartland. The DEA is funded at more than $1.2 billion, which includes funds targeted at meth production and trafficking, and funding is provided to assist small communities in my district and throughout rural America with the expensive and technologically challenging removal of hazardous waste generated from clandestine meth lab sites. The bill directs $35 million in resources to local law enforcement in the war on meth, to the COPS Meth Drug Hot Spots Program. Included in this funding is the innovative tri-state meth training center in Sioux City, Iowa, which provides police officers in rural areas with training and comprehensive counter-drug operations that their communities would not be able to afford or have access to. Continuing our efforts to stem the flow of illegal aliens, this bill once again provides funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. I would like to take the remainder of my time to thank the chairman, who has done a fantastic job and been so responsive to the needs of rural America, and I think for this entire country in his outstanding efforts as far as law enforcement, and also thank the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). It has been a pleasure to work with you in your first year on the committee. I look forward to working together very, very closely in conference and to get a bill that passes with an overwhelming vote.

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman very much for her support, all the people that have worked so hard on this bill, and the DEA, which has helped craft this bill to take out some fine points that really I think will be of great assistance to us in the future to tackle this most serious problem.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, no, it would not be my understanding. No.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, what it does is empower the family or the community somehow to go after the dealer, the manufacturer of illegal drugs to recover damages for rehabilitation for any kind of help that they need in the future.