Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for giving me the opportunity to offer my amendment to this very important bill addressing juvenile crime in America. Unfortunately, juvenile crime is a growing trend across this Nation. For years, the rural States thought themselves immune from serious juvenile crime and drug problems that were affecting America's coasts and the big cities. However, this is no longer the case. In fact, nowhere is juvenile crime growing faster than in America's heartland. This, of course, is 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 methamphetamines. Just last week in Storm Lake, Iowa, with a population of just 8,769 people, 10 were arrested for trafficking and drugs. Four of those arrested were only 18 years old. Those kids are probably just finishing high school and pushing that poison on other students. Clearly, our children are the most innocent and vulnerable to 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 service providers. For many of the juvenile addicts, who are increasingly female, by the way, the only hope is extensive medical and psychological treatment, along with physical therapy or even special education. All of these potential remedies are expensive. Very, very expensive. In fact, the most recent figures estimate the annual cost of substance abuse 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 that have entered and participated in the sale of the types of illegal drugs that have caused those injuries. The amendment I am offering today would provide a civil remedy for the people harmed by drugs, whether it be the actual user, the family of a user, or even the clinic or the community that provides treatment to hold drug dealers accountable for selling this poison that is tearing apart the very 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 in criminal actions or through their positions as affluent members in the community. However, that should not make them immune for paying for the destruction they cause. This amendment would empower victims to take action, like the Utah housewife who sued her husband's drug dealer ``friend'' of 6 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 his family. Other States, such as California, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Hawaii, South Dakota and Oklahoma, have enacted similar laws. The first lawsuit brought under a State drug dealer liability law was brought by Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services in Michigan 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 of 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 amendment is perfectly suited to go after the white collar drug dealers whose clientele includes their professional friends, 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 by my amendment, 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 amendment 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 legal product that injures a customer to be held liable for injuries resulting from the use of that product. However, most States do not provide compensation for persons who cause injury by intentionally distributing illegal drugs. The Latham drug liability amendment fills the gap to make drug dealers liable under civil law for the injuries to the victims of the drug. Finally, I hope I will be able to work with the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), on a more comprehensive liability measure in the future. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Latham amendment and give the victims of illegal drugs an opportunity to hold the drug dealers of this poison accountable under criminal and civil law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the Speaker and the chairman, number one, for allowing my amendment to be made in order today, but also I think it very important to understand that today we are going to focus on what is the real issue, and that is what is happening in our society as far as our families, the control that we have at the local level in our schools, and we have got to have legislation that allows families, empowers them, empowers the local school district, the teachers, gives them the resources to solve this very, very difficult situation that we are in. I just had the opportunity to visit with 48 students from Carroll, Iowa, seventh and eighth graders or middle school, and to see those young people, the kind of quality people that we have that want to do well in the future, who want to have a bright, safe, secure future. That is what this legislation is all about, and I am just very, very pleased that we are moving ahead today with legislation that is going to be very positive for these young folks from Carroll, Iowa, and all young folks in our schools.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point. I do not think this would be as much of an issue if we did not use embargoes like we have in this recent administration, and talk about sanctions, they are embargoes. No one likes to use that term because in agriculture that has real connotations, has real effects. We remember the Nixon embargo, the Carter embargo, how that devastated the agriculture. This, in fact, is what we are talking about, our embargoes, and in the last 80 years there have been 120 embargoes put forth by this country and other countries, and in fact over half of them have been put in place in the last 6\1/2\ years. So my colleagues can see the dramatic impact this has had on agriculture in recent years, a major reason for the decline in prices today, the fact that 40 percent of the world's population today is under some type of embargo from the United States, and it is extraordinarily destructive to agriculture, to free trade and our position in the world market. Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few points. The idea that this money goes to large corporations is simply bogus. This money is matched by money which is raised from producers, such as pork producers, who are hurting so badly today. The cattlemen, the corn growers, the soybean growers put their own money with this. This is not to enhance a particular brand name. It is to sell U.S., high-quality pork, corn products, feed products overseas. One part of the argument that I think is really missing is what effect do agricultural exports have on Americans as far as their jobs? And one gentleman made a statement about people working hard to pay taxes and using their money for this. Well, the fact of the matter is, in the State of California, where that gentleman was from, there are 124,000 jobs directly dependent upon agricultural exports. Think of it, 124,000 jobs which could be greatly reduced if we lose our export markets and if we do not continue to grow in our exports. In Ohio there are 27,000 jobs directly related to agricultural exports. It is extraordinarily important in a State like Ohio to maintain those good, high-paying jobs which are dependent upon agricultural exports. In the State of Iowa, a smaller population State, it has a huge impact. We have 80,000 jobs in Iowa that are directly related to agricultural exports. So when we talk about this program being some kind of corporate welfare, I hope people here will recognize the fact that our constituents at home are dependent upon agricultural exports. It is very important that we go and promote high quality American pork overseas, not a particular company, but American pork. It is very important that we promote American soybeans and find new uses for those product overseas for corn products, for beef overseas. It is extremely important. We have a tremendous number of jobs that are directly dependent. So let us not just talk about exporting and competing with other nations. Let us talk about at home in our own districts how important it is that we continue to use the tools available that the producers themselves are willing to contribute to to sell their products overseas which create good jobs at home in our own districts, high-paying jobs, and really are the future for agriculture in the international marketplace.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few comments. Obviously peanuts are not a big crop in Iowa. But it just struck me, I just spent a half an hour outside on the steps here with a group of FFA students from Ocheyedan, Iowa. We had a good conversation, and they asked a lot of questions about Congress, about the agriculture. One young lady asked me, ``What is the future of agriculture?'' It is a difficult question to answer. I have to kind of go back in my own mind and see what has transpired. When I graduated from high school in 1966, there were 50 kids in my class. When my daughter graduated from that same high school in 1995, there were 17 in her class. We are seeing a huge change in agriculture, in rural America. We are seeing communities shrink. The section where I still live, there used to be four families living on that section; now there is one. It is a huge change. To try and answer the question of this young lady about what is the future, really the answer is that agriculture today is a business, and it has to be treated that way. The people who will be successful are people who are agribusiness people, not just farmers. The only way that one can make good, sound decisions is to have adequate information. Mike Earl, the leader from Ocheyedan, Iowa, was talking about how that they are getting computers in their FFA classes, and they are learning how to use those computers, how to manage risk in the future. But a key part of that is the information that will come in from our universities, unbiased information for these agribusiness people of the future to make sound decisions. When I looked at that group, I did not just see 36 FFA kids from Ocheyedan, Iowa, I see the youth of America that is looking to us and asking what is agriculture's future for me. Whether it is in Georgia and they want to be a peanut farmer, whether they want to raise rice, whether they want to raise corn or soybeans or hogs or cattle or chickens or emus, whatever they want to do, it is a matter of getting good information, sound information, unbiased information. The only place that one can find that, that is people believe, is from our university researches. That is why it is extraordinarily critical that we maintain our commitment to agricultural research, that whether it is peanuts, whether it is corn or soybeans or hogs in my district, we have got to maintain our support. The future of agriculture, the future of sound agricultural policy for our young people, for a future for them, of safe food, ample supply for all Americans and for the rest of the world, depends on a lot on what we do here today. So I would just ask everyone in the House here, this may look like a good little cutting amendment, but when my colleagues vote today, think about maybe those 36 FFA kids in Georgia who maybe will not have the kind of future that a lot of us hope we have in agriculture. I am a farmer myself, and this means a great deal to me. But think about all of them; do not just think about one little amendment here. We have lived within our budget constraints. We have done everything to try and focus this research where it should be. It is about the future of this country. It is about the future of safe food, of the supply that is available. It is for the success of our young people. Please do not do this.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you are going to hurt the future of agriculture with this amendment and all these other amendments.

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am probably not going to take the full 5 minutes, but I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) a little while ago saying he did not want to do anything to hurt farmers. Well, I have to tell my colleagues I have the greatest respect for the gentleman, but the last amendment hurt farmers a lot. When my colleagues look at the services that they are trying to provide to farmers in the FSA offices, NRCS offices, with the computer systems that today cannot work together, and the whole purpose of that funding is to finally get some coordination at USDA, now this is an area that I have worked in in the last 3 years trying to fix this problem so that we can actually deliver services to our farmers, and cutting this money out of that is wrong. I did not enter into the debate before because I thought it was silly, but to make a statement like that simply is wrong. The gentleman should be aware that many Members who have voted for some of these amendments have actually come to us and asked for little research projects. Maybe the two-tenths of 1 percent that is overspent in this budget may be some of that that is going to different parts of the country for folk who today are voting to cut in this budget. I mean, I have heard of rice studies, wild rice, things like that. There are projects that people have asked all over to be included in this bill and now are voting against this bill. We are in the budget caps. If my colleagues do not think that this is going to hurt farmers, what they are doing, they are wrong. I will tell my colleagues directly, it may be fine to stand up and talk about protecting Social Security. The fact of the matter is we do not know what the budget surplus is going to be at the end of the year. We may in fact have surplus beyond what Social Security is this year. Then my colleagues' argument is not correct. Then we are not taking money out of Social Security. The fact of the matter is, I agree with my colleagues, we have got to balance the budget, but the fact of the matter is my colleagues are hurting farmers. If this is some filibuster today just to take advantage of an opportunity from very well-meaning people here who have worked their tails off on a bill, trying to accomplish a bill that helps a lot of Members around here with very important research projects that having a lot of them put us over maybe slightly, if in fact that is the case, but to talk about how this is not hurting farmers here is simply wrong. What we are doing here, it makes this House, it really is not the bright point of the day around here, let me just say that. Because in fact we have done the hard work of staying within the caps. We have done what we have been given as far as staying inside our allotments. But I just take very strong exception to the fact that we are not hurting farmers here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, I rise in support of this bill and, first of all, would like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their very hard work. The subcommittee enjoys a bipartisan cooperation, and I have really enjoyed working with all the colleagues to get this bill on the floor today. This bill feeds our schoolchildren, ensures the safety of prescription drugs and medical devices, protects our environment to water and soil conservation, restores Congress' commitment to agricultural research and rejects the President's desire to cut ongoing science. It helps expand our increasingly important export markets, and most importantly, it protects the taxpayer. Just as importantly, this bill does not include some of the President's proposals. Probably the most egregious is the fact that in the President's budget he had a $504 million new increase in fees on struggling livestock producers. These are the folks who have undergone some of the worst prices in history, and again, another increase in fee for grain farmers to the tune of $20 million that the President wanted to put on those farmers. I would like to engage the gentleman from New Mexico in a colloquy, if I may. Mr. Chairman, my intention is to clarify the committee to provide not less than $27,656,000 for the National Plant Germplasm System for Fiscal Year 2000. With this funding, our best and brightest scientists working throughout the Nation will continue to help farmers provide abundant, safe, nutritious and affordable supplies of food fiber. Mr. Chairman, is it the committee's intention to name that funding level in the conference report?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman we have heard the debate this afternoon. But why does the gentleman not talk to somebody who has been involved in an issue like this for 3 years now, trying to get the chief information officer to straighten out the travesty that is going on at USDA, where we have got 29 agencies down there, smokestacks, which each have their own computer system, cannot talk to each other, they cannot even e-mail from the north building to the south building. We are trying to fix that. Five hundred thousand dollars, maybe my colleagues do not think that is a big deal, but it is in a nonfunctional agency that is trying to straighten itself out. It will hurt our farmers, and I just want the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) to know that. That amendment that passed hurts his farmers at home and hurts the services that USDA provides them as far as the FSA offices and NRC offices.

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

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the frustration we have with the other body as far as trying to get all of these very important provisions moved. I would just say that this is an area where there is absolute consensus with everyone. This needs to be done. It needs to be done quickly. Why hold things this important up for things that are under discussion and have no consensus? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman is aware that the offsets in this are ones that he proposed. The ones he is referring to really are not germane to the amendment at hand. I would like to have everyone know that this is fully offset, it is fully paid for. It is something that I think is quite important today that we move this and move this quickly. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of very important issues in agriculture. We will deal with a lot of those through the normal appropriations process. This is the one area where there is consensus to move ahead. Everyone agrees that this needs to be done and needs to be done today. If we want to start more fights with the other body, if we want to stop or stand in the way of help for our farmers and the critical needs that they have today, all we need to do is load it up with a bunch of extraneous issues. But this is critical today, that we move this and move it quickly. Mr. Chairman, I just want to, in closing, urge everyone to support this amendment. It is paid for. I want to also thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her support on so many of these agricultural issues, and our chairman of the subcommittee, and also, certainly, the chairman of the full committee, who bent over backwards to be of assistance to agriculture.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, in the amendment there is $4 million to administer these loans. So this is a package with the administrative funds in there. We will get the money to them, both the dollars and the costs in the offices.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I very much appreciate the gentlewoman from Ohio's comments, and I think what she is expressing is the same sentiments I have and the frustration with the other body because we have done the heavy lifting here in the House, and our frustration really is to getting the conference done and move on. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the State of South Dakota (Mr. Thune), an outstanding representative who has been such a strong advocate for agriculture.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman from Florida very much, and I would reiterate that I do not think we need to go on for the full 40 minutes here in debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time; and I rise in support of the rule today. It is very, very important that the farm credit provisions in the amendment that we will be putting forward was made a part of the discussion today, and the amendment will be offered. As everyone knows, agriculture is in a very difficult situation today. The USDA has not been able to get out the checks that are needed as far as the disaster that we passed last year, the $2.3 billion. We have a credit crisis in agriculture today, and we have to use every possible means to make sure that we get credit to our farmers this spring. They are in the field today. And we appreciate very much the Committee on Rules allowing us to have this amendment be part of the debate today.