Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment today is merely an effort to recognize and ensure that we provide our Nation's farmers with essential credit. This amendment will provide $105.6 million in appropriations to support over $1 billion in farm loans and an additional $4 million for administrative expenses. Although the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) Agriculture Committee chairman, asked the Secretary of Agriculture to release about $150 million in unobligated funds to ease the credit gap, the House is again being asked to do the heavy lifting for USDA. Members may recall, earlier this year, the House voted to release $470 million in funds that could be made immediately available for guaranteed farm loans. As expected, the Senate, the other body, continues to debate among themselves about additional farm spending, further delaying the supplemental that the House passed in March. In addition, the USDA has delayed disaster payments that were appropriated last October; and the farm credit crunch continues. I think the House should be aware that the $2.3 billion that was made available last year has still not gotten to the farmers, and it may be June until USDA finally figures out how to disburse those funds that we appropriated last year because of the disaster in agriculture. These loans are important to those who need assistance today. We have farmers in the field that have no credit, have not been able to secure the guarantees that they need at the bank, and it is extraordinarily important that we move and move quickly in this provision. This is the language that was agreed to by the House in H.R. 1141; and it is offset, entirely offset, with unobligated funds. I would like to remind my colleagues that we have not been given an ironclad assurance from the other body that we will end up with a combined conference report that will include both supplementals, the one that we passed in March and this one today. That is why it is so essential that we have this provision that is needed immediately, that this is the fastest-moving vehicle and we have to get this credit to our farmers as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. We have a very hard time in agriculture today, and the fix that we need is some type of revenue insurance, some way of farmers insuring their risk. The Secretary of Agriculture came before our Subcommittee on Appropriations and said, ``We cannot do it on the cheap to fix this problem.'' Well, let us look at the President's budget. What does he have for crop insurance to fix the problem? A big fat goose egg. What does the Republican budget have in it? $6 billion to help our farmers. And also, in the President's budget, the livestock producers are going to have their taxes increased by $504 million right out of their hides.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the debate, talking about what is happening with agriculture. We do have a very, very serious problem in agriculture. There was some concern expressed about using the P.L. 480 dollars for an offset in this bill. The fact of the matter is the reason there are dollars there is because the administration did not use it last year. They did not use that tool to get rid of the surplus. That is why there are dollars left over. It is also the case, when we look at the export enhancement funds, in the last 3 years we have had $1.5 billion available to promote exports of U.S. products around the world, and the administration has done nothing. Also this year, the administration claimed that they had set new heights of using a little over $4 billion for export credits. The fact of the matter is, by law the minimum is $5.5 billion that is supposed to be used, and in the Democrat administration budget this year, they are cutting $215 million out of those credits. That is, again, going to cripple our exports. I heard the minority leader earlier talk about the hog farmers. If we look at the Democrat administration budget being put forth to try and help that hog farmer, they have $504 million in new taxes on livestock producers that is going to come right out of the hide of that pork producer in the minority leader's district. I believe we have to help farmers today, and not hurt them. We have to use the tools available to make sure that our exports are promoted, that we use every resource possible. What the problem is in agriculture today is just a failure by this administration to use the tools available for export to help our producers, and this bill needs to move, move now, so they have the credit this spring to put a crop in the ground.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding. I just come to the floor to say thank you to a real gentleman, Bob Livingston, to say thank you for his honesty and integrity, someone that I admire very, very much and, last of all, to say thank you for the opportunity that Bob Livingston gave me to serve with him on the Committee on Appropriations. His leadership is something that will always be very, very important in my career here in the House. He is going to be missed tremendously. We love him and wish him Godspeed.

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my thanks to the chairman of the full committee. He has done such a great job working for American agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and his cooperation in working out a few technical difficulties we had, but I appreciate it very, very much. Also, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who has worked so hard for all of agriculture. Mr. Speaker, on January 6, I introduced H.R. 169 in an effort to level the playing field for embattled American pork producers. I think the Speaker is acutely aware of the problems that pork producers have experienced in recent months with the prices dipping down to under $10 per hundred. Currently, they moved back up to close to $28 per hundred, but certainly well below any level of profitability. We have experienced prices well below Depression Era prices, and it is so important that we do as much as possible and as quickly as possible to help our pork producers. My legislation amends the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 to include swine in a 12-month pilot investigation of live cattle and lamb prices that was included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill. This legislation contributes to our efforts to revive a farm economy that is in bad shape. The difficulties associated with low grain prices have been compounded by low livestock prices. At the very least, America's farmers want to know if they are receiving fair compensation for their very hard work. 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 too few. H.R. 169 will assist farmers by examining how we can best preserve the competitive nature of the farm economy. We cannot allow our Nation's farmers to be left without the tools for them to use to make sure they receive the best possible price for their livestock. It is important to consider that the four largest meat packers in this country process 57 percent of all of the hogs. As a result, the industry is looking to Congress to find out if this increase in packer concentration had a direct effect on the recent decline in live hog prices. If we can find methods in which accurate and timely pricing information can provide producers with the tools needed to make the best possible business decisions for their farm, we will be making a positive contribution to agriculture. It is my hope the results of this investigation will help Congress and the administration formulate additional policies that will be a result of more fair, effective market prices so that we all know what the real price of pork is.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I quote: ``Do you solemnly swear in the testimony you are about to give that it will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?'' Mr. Speaker, that is the oath President Clinton took before his August 17th testimony of this year. The President answered ``I do''. And despite repeated attempts by Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg to warn him of the consequences of providing false or misleading testimony, the President went on to make perjurious statements pertaining to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his sworn testimony in the Paula Jones civil trial. But why? Why would this President, who by anyone's account is a very intelligent man and a very good lawyer, and thus knowing the consequences of his actions, why would be proceed to commit perjury before the grand jury? I think the answer lies in the testimony of the President's political consultant and confidant Dick Morris. After the story of the President's extramarital relationship and his false testimony in the Jones civil trial broke, he consulted with Morris about what strategy he should employ. It was decided a poll should be taken to gauge what conduct the American people would and would not forgive. According to Morris' testimony, his poll found that the President's adultery could be forgiven by the public. However, the results also showed that if it were found that the President committed perjury or obstructed justice, the public would consider that grounds for removal from office. It is then when the President made a defining statement to Morris. He said, ``Well, we just have to win, then.'' And so it was, back in January, that the President determined to continue his pattern of lies and deceit, to his staff, his cabinet, the American public and to the grand jury on August 17th. This first article of impeachment is perhaps the most serious. It is clearly evident that President William Jefferson Clinton perjured himself before a federal grand jury--certainly a ``high crime'' as delineated in Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution. We cannot, in good conscience, ignore the President's callous disregard for the laws made on the floor of this House. ``Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?''--The oath taken by President Clinton in the Jones versus Clinton civil trial. There are some who say the second article, regarding the President's perjurious testimony in the Jones versus Clinton case, does not amount to an impeachable offense since it occurred as part of a civil and not a criminal trial and since, ultimately, the case was thrown out of court. In fact, some even claim the President's statements do not amount to perjury. However, one of the President's own special counsel, Gregory B. Craig, in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, ``conceded that in the Jones deposition, the President's testimony was evasive, incomplete, misleading--even maddening,'' Given this and the evidence derived from the sworn testimony of Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie, Monica Lewinsky and others, there is clear and convincing evidence that the President lied under oath and committed perjury in the Jones deposition. The fact that the case was subsequently thrown out of court does not acquit the President from the perjury count. Because, in fact, the President's perjurious statements denied Paula Jones a continuance of that trial, and, in effect, her civil rights. Obstruction of justice is an equally grave crime. The third article of impeachment delineates how President Clinton set out on a course to obstruct justice in seven instances, including the President's tampering with witnesses in the Jones versus Clinton case, notably Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky. The President's actions prevented Paula Jones' suit from receiving a fair and just decision in court on whether her civil rights had been violated by the President. Each of us would expect that our grievance would receive a fair hearing in a court of law, it is our Constitutional right. No one, including the President of the United States--especially the President of the United States--should be able to deny someone that right and not suffer the consequences of their actions. President Clinton has displayed a pattern of lying, putting forth perjurious testimony, and obstructing justice, all which undermine our Constitution and the principle that no one individual is above the law--that the law is applied equally to all. This despite his oath before the American people on two occasions to ``faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and to . . . to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Furthermore, while I do not believe Article 4 necessarily rises to the level of an impeachable offense in this instance, the President has, with great disrepute, used his office to proliferate his own lies and destroy the character of those who have sought to serve justice. Unfortunately, this behavior is in no way a revelation to this generation or to those past. In fact, in 1788, Sir Edmund Burke, in his opening speech for the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the British Governor General of Bengal and India, noted the employment of such familiar tactics as character assassination and twisting the truth when he criticized Hastings and his defenders that . . . ``When they cannot deny the facts, they attack the accuser--they attack their conduct, they attack their persons, they attack their language in every possible manner.'' However, I bear no personal grudge against President Clinton. I forgive him for what he has done. But forgiveness is not justice, and since we are a nation of laws, we must see to it that the laws are upheld and applied equally to all citizens. That principal is what this nation was built on, it is for what our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. And it is in this great legislative body that we are charged with making the laws that govern our nation. To permit the chief executive enforcing those laws to cast them aside as he pleases would, in effect, sanction such actions. To do nothing would be to place a stamp of approval on illicit conduct and transfer power to the executive branch, thus upsetting the system of checks and balances devised by the Framers. It would cheapen the law, which, in turn, would cheapen the work by this House. So it is with a heavy heart but a clear conscience that I cast my votes in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment today. Of course, the people of northwest Iowa did not send me 1000 miles from my home in Alexander to the U.S. Congress to make the easy decisions. But if a democratic republic were an easy system of government, America would not be unique in this world. A republic is so difficult to maintain because it demands greater sacrifice and restraint on the part of the ruler and than the ruled. Part of this sacrifice is that our leaders are held to a higher standard of conduct as they set the example for the rest of the citizenry and are placed in a position of trust. It pains me to say that this President has placed himself above the Office of the Presidency and above the people he took an oath to serve. The House of Representatives is doing today what is our duty to do. We should wait no longer, for as Burke opined, ``To have forborne longer would not have been patience but collusion.''

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker very much for this time and I also thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) for his comments about the agricultural provisions in this bill that we are about to pass tomorrow. I would just like to point out some key provisions I think that are extremely important to all of us in agriculture who are experiencing some very difficult times. First of all, a new provision as far as soy biodiesel, and the gentleman in the Chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), has played a major role in getting this included, this is going to be a great opportunity for soybean producers to use soybean oil as a fuel. It will add value to soybeans to the tune of about 8 to 14 cents a bushel. If someone is an Iowa farmer, that is a lot of money. Also a provision in here gives some additional help to livestock producers who have experienced devastating crop loss and have had to go out and buy feed for their livestock. There are $200 million in there for those disasters. I think this bill finally shows a stark contrast to what the administration in their budget proposal put forth when they had $573 million of taxes on farmers in the form of user fees if they are in the livestock business. So this is a great victory for livestock producers. There is a provision in here which is very important also to livestock producers, and that is a 1-year price reporting provision and a study to go with that. It is a pilot program, but I think it is very, very important that there is transparency in the market place so that people know when they discover price for livestock it is done in an open and fair manner and this is a very, very important provision. Also, for farmers, there are some tax provisions that are extraordinarily important. Income averaging, 3-year income averaging, is going to become a permanent part of our tax law after this bill is passed. We have a look-back provision so that if a farmer had a very good year 4 years back he can look back this year if he had a disaster and recover some of the taxes that he paid back in his very, very high income year, extremely important; a 5-year look back provision. Health care deduction for not only farmers but for all self-employed people, this is extraordinarily important. If a person is a farmer out there, if they have a small business, one of their major costs is health care, and currently we are not allowed to deduct nearly enough of the cost of that health care. In the year 2003, it will go to 100 percent deductibility, extremely important for self-employed folks and for farmers. Because of our good friends at the IRS, we had to include a provision so that they did not tax us this year on money that we did not receive this year. As farmers know, the emergency bill we passed earlier allowed them to take their farm payments earlier in this year for the entire 1999 year. Well, IRS said because a person may or may not take the money actually this year, if they do not take it we are still going to charge tax on it. So we fixed that provision in this bill. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I think with this aid package that is here for agriculture, we did not undermine the fundamental policy of the freedom to farm bill. The freedom to farm is based on the idea of the government finally respecting the intelligence of farmers to make decisions for themselves. Over the last 6 years we have had a one-size-fits-all government controlled policy trying to say that the government can out-guess the weather every year, and the government saying we know how much someone is going to produce next year so we are going to have a farm program that is going to fit that. It has never worked. We have either compounded surpluses or we have caused crop disaster years to be compounded in a negative way. It has never worked, and the government, with all the infinite wisdom we have around here, has never been able to out-guess the weather. I am on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. We have also in this bill fought off the administration in their efforts to undercut crop insurance. Looking at the President's budget this year, they cut dramatically crop insurance which was going to devastate any opportunities for farmers to cover their own risk. We have fought off that provision from the administration. We continue to put in money to help farmers to be able to export their products. My only hope, Mr. Speaker, would be that in this next fiscal year that the administration will finally use the tools that we have given them to help move our agricultural products overseas. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very, very good bill for farmers. It is a very good bill for all Americans and I will support it tomorrow.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much, and I want to express my appreciation to him for working very hard through a very tough bill, and the ranking member for being so very, very helpful and accommodating. Let me just say, first of all, the gentleman just talked about the Freedom to Farm bill, calling it the freedom-to-fail bill. I think what this bill points out is the fact that the administration has totally abandoned and failed our farmers, when you look at the fact over the last three years we have had $1.5 billion available for this administration to use to market our grains overseas in the form of Export Enhancement Program funds, and only when the European Union dumped 30,000 metric tons of feed grain barley in California did they finally use about $7 million of this. Let us look at what the administration's response has been to the plight of the American farmer. In their budget proposal from the other side that they brought forward they had $573 million of new taxes on livestock producers, and these are people who are in dire straits today. But they have got $573 million of new taxes on beef and pork producers in their budget. They cut $35 million out of the Food for Peace program. And when we have a safety net in the farm bill as far as revenue assurance, what is the administration's response in their budget proposal? It is to cut funds out of insurance for farmers to the point where they were going to decimate the entire program for farmers to actually cover their risk out here as far as price and yield. This is the response of an administration who pretends to be concerned about farmers? The problem is the administration has failed in enacting a good bill which finally gives farmers the freedom to make decisions for themselves. There are people here who want to roll back the clock and go back to government control on everything, which they have never controlled price except exacerbated a real problem when we have surpluses, and that is what they want to do again. This is a good bill which actually helps farmers. Being a farmer myself who lives on a farm and operates a farm and understands a little bit about agriculture, I hope, I hope people will support this bill. The emergency funds in here actually go to help farmers who have need today. The alternative was to put money into a program which, if you did not have a crop this year, would give you no help at all. To raise loan caps when you do not have any grain to put under loan, does not help you. I would also say by extending the period of the loans, let us think about this for a second, shall we? If you do not have a crop to put under loan, how does extending the loan help you? How does raising the caps on the loans help you, when you have nothing to put under loan? All their program does is give more money to people who have good crops and take money away from people who have had natural disasters. Does that make any sense at all? No, it makes no sense at all. We have a good bill that is going to help farmers who have disasters, who need financial assistance because of the administration's policy, which has caused the low prices that we have in agriculture today. Let us support this bill. I would ask everyone to join together in making this work, because it is critical for agriculture and it is critical for this country.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for fast track. As a representative from the State of Iowa, the importance of this to everyone in agriculture cannot be overestimated. It is imperative that we have fast track. There are trade agreements going on today, negotiations that are going on around the world, and we are not at the table because we have not seen fit to trust this administration to give the authority to make agreements. We have got to be at the table with these agreements. It is essential for long-term growth. I am very saddened today to see people who, as a matter of principle in the past, have supported fast track but today have decided they are going to play a shell game and let somebody else off the hook, let them vote ``yes'', because they are going to cover them and vote ``no.'' This is for the interest of the entire country. We have to pass fast track for agriculture, for the rest of trade in this world, and for this country for jobs here, for economic prosperity. We have to do it, and we have to do it today.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the actions that the administration has taken in their budget proposal this year with the farm crisis going on. I spoke yesterday about the $573 million tax increase that they propose to put on our livestock farmers who are dying out there today. Also, I would like to point out what they are doing to help the grain farmer and the person trying to do conservation work. In their budget proposal, they want to tax people for the information to find out how to comply with the programs. So when you go into the NRCS office or you go to the FSA office, bring your checkbook because the administration says they are going to charge you to get information from you. It is outrageous. I would just like to tell the Secretary of Agriculture and this administration, they have taken enough out of the hide of the American farmer, and they better go to work and try to help them rather than to continue to tax them and put them out of business.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this morning on a problem that is devastating to rural America, to Iowa: Our livestock producers are suffering from extremely low prices. And I would like to inform the Congress as to what the response from this administration has been. It is a typical liberal Democrat response. Secretary Glickman gets together with the President and decides the answer is to raise taxes on farmers. All we have to do is look at the budget and there are $573 million of new taxes on livestock farmers in the President's budget. This is the kind of response this administration has to a farm crisis, is to raise taxes on farmers? When will this Congress wake up and find out that we have got to help these people, not bring the normal answer from the liberal Democrats and tax and tax more. The well is dry. Our farmers are broke. Let us try to help them, not destroy them.

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Well, I will concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. But, quite honestly, when we look at the entire situation we have, we have to find some way of holding people accountable for their actions. I think this is an opportunity that we will be missing by this point of order to hold people who are destroying children, babies, people all over this country, with no consequences as far as their civil liability. They are able to profit. Unfortunately, I understand the point of order, but I think it really is very unfortunate that it be insisted upon.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Speaker's Task Force For a Drug-Free America, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for providing a platform to address the national tragedy of drug trafficking and abuse. Unfortunately, this is a growing trend across the Nation. For years, the Midwest States thought themselves immune from the drug problems on America's coasts and in the big cities. However, that is no longer the case. In fact, nowhere is the drug problem growing faster than in America's heartland. As the Speaker noted earlier today, my home State of Iowa is experiencing an unprecedented influx of methamphetamine from Mexico and regional clandestine laboratories. Meth is as addictive as crack cocaine and the stimulation, or high, is sustained much longer. Violent crime, destruction of families, and the greater likelihood for damage to the fetus of a meth-abusing mother make this an epidemic that has much more severe monetary costs as well, creating additional problems and challenges for law enforcement and human service providers in the Midwest. Drug-addicted babies are clearly the most innocent and vulnerable of those affected by illegal drug use and are often the most physically and mentally damaged due to the existence of the illegal drug market in a community. For many of the addicts, babies and adults alike, the only hope is extensive medical and psychological treatment, physical therapy, and special education. All of these potential remedies are very expensive. These babies, through their legal guardians and through court-appointed guardians, should be able to recover damages from those in the community who have entered and participated in the marketing of the types of illegal drugs that have caused their injuries. The amendment I am offering today, based on my bill H.R. 4204, The Drug Dealer Liability Act, is modeled after similar legislation recently enacted in the States of California, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Utah, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Hawaii, South Dakota and Oklahoma. The amendment is intended to provide a civil remedy for damages to persons in a community injured as a result of illegal drug use. These persons include parents, employers, insurers, health care and drug treatment providers, as well as drug-addicted babies. This amendment would enable them to recover damages from those persons in the illegal drug market who profited from their pain or loss. It is my hope that the prospect of substantial monetary loss made possible by The Drug Dealer Liability Act would also act as a deterrent to entering the narcotics market. 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 the drugs to the user in the past. While this legislation is not intended to be a silver bullet, it is another tool to combat and deter drug abuse and trafficking. Today, in 39 States, it is not clear under established law that families who lose a child to drugs or a drug baby needing treatment and special education can compel dealers to pay for the injuries they cause. This is true even though in most States a producer of a product that injures a consumer can be liable for the injuries resulting from the use of that product. The Drug Dealer Liability Act fills the gap to make drug dealers liable, under civil law, for the injuries to the families of drug users. The first lawsuit brought under a drug dealer liability law resulted in a judgment of $1 million in favor of a Michigan drug baby, and more than $7 million to the City of Detroit's expenses for providing drug treatment for the city's prison inmates. In addition, this bill could fill a possible gap in asset forfeitures by law enforcement resulting from the decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June that may, under some circumstances, rule total forfeiture of a defendant's assets as an excessive fine under the eighth amendment's excessive fines clause. Let us pass this amendment and give the victims of the illegal drug market an opportunity to hold the dealers of this poison accountable under criminal and civil law. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Latham amendment. Point of Order

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I may just ask the gentleman, you are saying actually people do these things in communities without getting paid for them?

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). First of all, I would like to remind my colleagues that money is fungible. The Federal tax dollars we spend are all printed with green and not identified by account. In recognizing that fact, we cannot come before the American taxpayers and say these dollars are not Federal tax dollars. Members of Congress vote to appropriate these funds. These are federally appropriated funds, and we have the right to judge how the money is spent and withhold funds that are destined to be spent improperly. A case in point is the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, also known as the ANCs. They have existed in the District of Columbia for over 20 years. Unfortunately, 20 years has provided plenty of time for the District's corrupt political machine to use the funds irresponsibly and inappropriately. It is time for Congress to put a stop to these slush funds. Why? Because an audit of the ANCs' annual budget found that 12 of the 37 ANCs failed to submit one or more quarterly financial reports for fiscal year 1997, and at least 5 of those 12 failed to submit reports for a whole fiscal year. In addition, the audit reported, internal control procedures were not followed, and some ANC officers were found to have signed checks made payable to themselves, including an ANC chairperson diverting over $10,000 of these federally appropriated dollars for personal use and a treasurer diverting another $2,400 for personal use. ANC treasurers have failed to provide regular financial reports to the commissioners. ANC officers have spent funds without obtaining commission approval. Reimbursements were not often supported by receipts or invoices. Bank statements, balances, were not reconciled with checkbook balances. Voided checks were not consistently canceled, mutilated or maintained in ANC files. I oppose this amendment because this Congress should support funding proposals that can help our Nation's Capital. This proposal simply funds further corruption in this city. The ANCs have had over 20 years to do the right job, and they simply have failed. This amendment makes the Federal Government a coconspirator in an effort to expand DC's corrupt bureaucratic spiderweb into 37 separate neighborhood commissions. In conclusion, I want Members of this body to think about a few interesting facts: The State of Iowa, where I am from, appropriates about $4.3 billion a year. Washington, DC has a $6.7 billion appropriation. To compare, Iowa has over five times more people than DC, has a much larger infrastructure than DC, spends less than one-half per student on education, and Iowa is ranked number one in the Nation. Washington, DC, spending more than twice that much, is ranked dead last. Iowa was just named the best place in the country to raise a child. Compare that to what we are seeing here in DC Obviously, we do things a little differently in Iowa, but I can safely bet we do them a little better. We should stop wasting money on ANCs and use these dollars to actually help the people of our Nation's great capital. DC does not need more money, it needs honest leadership and management.

Mr. LATHAM. That is kind of way we do it in Iowa.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from West Virginia. Former Prime Minister Harold MacMillan once remarked that the English people did not throw off the yoke of the divine right of kings in order to bow before the divine right of experts. I think there is some truth in that. In Congress here we have rules that we go by procedurally, but the ultimate rule that we have in Congress is the Constitution of the United States. This is the ultimate rule. Let us just see what the Constitution says about the idea of guessing at how many people are in the United States. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution says: ``The actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first meeting of Congress of the United States and within every subsequent term of 10 years in such a manner as they shall by law direct.'' Let us look at the definition of what ``enumeration'' is. This is the dictionary that we use here. To enumerate: to mention separately, as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list. I think that is pretty clear as to what enumeration stands for. Also in the Constitution it refers to the census. Article XIV of the 14th Amendment, section 2, very clearly says, ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.'' Okay. If there is any question as to what that means, I think we can also take the dictionary and look at what it is to count. To count: to check over, one by one, to determine the total number; add up; enumerate. When we were elected or sworn in to this Congress, we stood here and raised our hands that we would uphold the Constitution of the United States. I do not think that there is really a question as to what the Founding Fathers said. It is very clear. It is defined by Webster exactly what the words are.

Mr. LATHAM. That simply is not the case. I think anyone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution should maybe read it.