Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for authorizing this resolution. I rise in strong support. The European Union is a critical market for U.S. agriculture. U.S. agriculture exports to the European communities were 10.5 billion in 1997, and imports from the EU to the U.S. totaled about 7.5 billion. However, the fact remains, the EU subsidizes agriculture far more than the United States. The EU export subsidies and domestic support programs are estimated to total almost $50 billion. U.S. programs total about $5.5 billion. The European Union's agricultural policies are so punitive that they have actually been known to distort entire world markets. Tariff and nontariff trade barriers must come down. These policies hurt American farmers, they toy with our world markets, and we must level the playing field. Free and fair trade is critical to the success of our agricultural community. This Congress will continue to fight for improved access for agricultural exports. The President should join Congress in reducing and eventually eliminating agriculture from foreign sanctions. The 1999 World Trade Organization negotiations should address the issues that are important to America's farmers and important to rural America's economic health. The 1999 World Trade Organization negotiations present the administration with an opportunity to reduce barriers to free trade and expand on the many opportunities that will assist our cash-strapped farmers, and we must insist that decisions are based on sound science in Europe. It is in the United States' best interests to address unfair trade practices during the next year's negotiations. Let's continue to push for reduction in nontariff trade barriers, and I hope the U.S.-European trade relationship will continue to be successful in the future.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the bill. As a member of the subcommittee, I know this is a difficult bill to work on as it funds some of the most important and diverse functions of the Federal Government. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who chairs this subcommittee, has worked with both sides of the aisle to craft a bill that properly reflects Congress' priorities, particularly in the area of law enforcement. Each year there are new and greater challenges confronting law enforcement officials throughout the Nation. In order to be successful, Federal, State and local officials need to work together in a coordinated effort to combat criminals that are increasingly better organized, more lethal, and more technologically advanced. My home State of Iowa, like many States throughout the Midwest and the West, has become inundated with methamphetamine production and trafficking. In fact, the tri-State Siouxland region of Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota has become the meth distribution capital 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. However, domestic producers are also a significant problem. In 1994 Iowa law enforcement officials seized only one clandestine meth lab, and 10 in 1996. Despite increased law enforcement efforts, that number has jumped to 111 through only half of this year. Our bill provides greater resources for the DEA to focus on the methamphetamine epidemic in America's heartland. DEA is funded at more than $1.2 billion, which includes a $24.5 million increase targeted at meth production and trafficking, and more than $4 million in increased funding provided to assist small communities in my district and throughout rural America with the expensive and technically challenging removal of hazardous wastes generated at clandestine meth lab sites. The bill directs an additional $50 million in resources to local law enforcement in the war on meth through the COPS Methamphetamine Drug Hot Spots Program. Included in this is funding to continue the innovative Tri-State Methamphetamine Training Center in Sioux City, Iowa, which provides police officers in rural areas with training in comprehensive counter-drug operations that their communities would normally not be able to afford or have access to. Continuing our efforts to stem the flow of illegal aliens, this year's bill again provides funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. However, there are also a number of important INS-related provisions in our bill. The INS has been slow to implement a provision I included in the immigration reform legislation enacted in 1996 that charged INS to establish a program to deputize State and local law enforcement agents, thus enabling them to assist with identifying criminal aliens. However, our bill provides $21.8 million to set up 50 innovative INS Quick Response Teams to aid local law enforcement with identifying and removing illegal aliens. This is critical to areas throughout rural America where the INS has simply failed to respond to calls from local authorities to identify criminal aliens and take them into custody. Also included in the bill is language under the COPS Technology Program permitting technology such as video teleconferencing equipment to be purchased under this grant program. This equipment will enable local police to identify criminal aliens by conferencing directly with INS officials at regional offices. The INS is currently testing this innovative pilot program in San Diego County, which, again, is a result of my provision in the 1996 reform act. I would like to take the remainder of my time to thank the chairman for responding to the needs of Iowa. The chairman recognizes the unique needs of rural America and has provided law enforcement officials at all levels with the resources necessary to meet head-on the challenges they face and they will face in the coming years. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this great bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota first of all, and I rise in support of S. 2344. I have heard a lot from home about the problems we have in farm country, the disasters we have. I just want to say that I think this will help a great deal to get us through an immediate crisis, but if we have a disaster, I want to state that the administration's policy has been, number one, to cut crop insurance when we have these disasters. Last year we had to fight to the mat to be able to save crop insurance. In the past 3 years they have had a billion and a half dollars available for market export programs. They finally used about $7 million of that. Today, as far as trade sanctions, the administration has put on 61 sanctions in the last 6 years compared in the last 80 years we had 120 sanctions. Forty percent of the world's population is under sanctions from this administration today which cuts off any possibility of selling agricultural products. Lastly, we have got to pass this fall fast track legislation to help agriculture, and I would hope the administration would finally get on board and decide to push it. I have been reading all the articles now saying they are going to sit on the sidelines, encourage the Democrats to sit on the sidelines. We have got to have negotiation authority so that we can move our agricultural products. Long term that is the solution for agriculture, is to sell the production we can have in this miracle in the U.S. called agriculture. Again I want to support this bill, I encourage everyone to do that, but we have got to change our policies if we are in effect going to save agriculture in the long term.

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman knows, my district in northwest Iowa, like many areas throughout rural America, finds itself underserved when it comes to health care. This is particularly true concerning area veterans. My district, which covers one-third of Iowa's geographic area, is served by VISN No. 13 in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and VISN No. 14 in Omaha, Nebraska, and Des Moines, Iowa. Yet there are no VA medical facilities in the district to serve area veterans. Therefore, most veterans must travel anywhere from an hour-and-a-half to three hours each way to find VA medical care. The placement of a VA community-based outpatient clinic in Sioux City and Fort Dodge would greatly increase the accessibility of VA health care for my constituents. Would the chairman agree to work with me in urging the VA to work towards this end?

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for the opportunity to speak against this very ill-advised amendment, which would have a tremendous detrimental effect, not only on the farm family in Iowa, but across this country, but also on our balance of trade situation. Agriculture exports about $55 billion. For each $1 billion, there are about 20,000 American jobs. It is extremely important to maintain this program so that we can compete in the world market. We have got to also understand that this program is on a 50/50 basis with the producer out there who is paying half of the cost. The corn growers, the Soybean Association, the pork producers, the beef folks, the cattlemen pay their share to make sure that they have the opportunity to promote their American product overseas and to make sure that the jobs stay here in the United States rather than have our foreign competitors take away our jobs. This is extremely important to continue this very, very valuable program. I would certainly urge a strong no vote to this ill-advised amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, here they come again, the Members who hate production agriculture, who do not believe that farmers out in the country doing the real work, trying to provide for their families, deserve a chance. Anything to get cheap food. Do not worry about where it comes from or who has to lose their farm, their lifelong occupation, because of the will of the Members who want to put them out of business and think that food only comes from the grocery store. Members might wonder why a guy from Iowa cares about the sugar program. I will tell my colleagues. It has a dramatic impact on what happens in the Midwest with the price of corn. We have an example here. The price of corn sweetener, which is in competition with sugar, has been down over 50 percent. Has it had any effect as far as consumer prices? Yes. The carbonated soft drink cost has actually gone up, almost a percent. Anyone who thinks that there is going to be a benefit to the consumer simply is not looking at what are the facts of the situation. What a lot of these folks would like to see happen is to have the price of sugar go down, put American production out, the sugar producer, the farmer, put him out of business, import a bunch of cheap sugar substitute for corn fructose in the soft drinks. That will cost an already depressed Midwest corn producer at least 25 cents a bushel. And at the low level of corn prices today, that would be devastating. So Members can listen to the crowd that does not care about agriculture, does not care about families out there working. Members can listen to them and they can listen to reason and we can keep our promise that we made to agriculture in 1996.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made here this evening for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), two great Members who are going to be missed a great deal next year. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), for crafting a bill that maintains funding for the Army Corps of Engineers and many critical projects, but also remains true to the budget parameters we have set here in Congress. The Energy and Water Development Act preserves our commitment to cleaning up nuclear waste, maintaining our waterways, and promoting the future energy needs of each American. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I voted in favor of this bill in committee, in particular because of a project important to the people of Sioux City, Iowa. Sioux City is one of the many cities in America established on a river, and while the river remains the lifeblood of the city, the people oftentimes find themselves at its mercy. The Perry Creek Flood Control Project is funded in this bill. This important flood control project removes fear of flooding for downtown Sioux City and for a large community of retirees. The project enjoys the support of local funding, and allows the city to further redevelop its infrastructure without losing investors due to unforeseen disasters. The Perry Creek Flood Control Project is one of several funded in this bill to protect towns and cities at risk from flooding. I want to thank the chairman and the committee for working with me to make sure this project received appropriate funding. I recognize the Committee on Appropriations has faced a daunting task in writing bills with very limited amount of resources. For Sioux City, for many other cities in similar situations, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would not disagree with the gentleman, but the fact of the matter is, with the decision being made next Monday, the time sensitive nature of that situation, I am very much appreciative of the fact that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) allowed us to go forward, because I think it is very important in that the people's House express an opinion. We are representing the people. I think that is the one part of this whole equation that has been left out is what the effects are on the people out there that we represent. I apologize that because of the time sensitive nature of this that we had to proceed in this manner. I would hope that he would continue the oversight job that I know he will and to continue his work, but I think this is very important, for us to make a statement here today for the people.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to personally thank my good friend from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for being here today and also express my appreciation to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) of the subcommittee for waiving jurisdiction, because this is very time sensitive. They are going to make this decision next Monday. I think the people's House has a right to express an opinion. This is a sense of the House resolution, expressing an opinion. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this sense of the House resolution calling for the United States Postal Board of Governors to reject the $1.6 billion postage rate increase recommended last month by the Postal Rate Commission. This $1.6 billion rate hike, of which $1 billion will fall upon senders of first-class letters, will affect every American, but primarily those who are poor and are on fixed incomes. Whether we are sending a Father's Day card, a ``get well'' card to our grandmother, or just paying our monthly bills, the Postal Service will be hitting us up for even more change out of our pocket. Just to add insult to injury, the Postal Service even raised rates on certified mail, which millions of Americans use to send in their taxes to the IRS. Included in this $1.6 billion rate hike or stamp tax is an increase in rates for nonprofit mailers. Local churches, temples, and charities in every Member's district will have to pay about 11 percent more per mailing they send out. As we all know, mailings are often the lifeblood of these organization's donations. That is why the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, and it has more than 150 member organizations, strongly support this resolution. The Alliance includes a broad spectrum of organizations such as the AARP, the American Cancer Society, the American Farm Bureau, the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Disabled American Veterans, Citizens for a Sound Economy, American Baptist Churches, B'nai B'rith International, the Salvation Army, the YMCA, Rutgers University, UCLA, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the National Association of School Boards, the World Wildlife Fund and Consumers Union of the U.S. Also nonprofit periodical publishers such as the National Geographic Society will be hit hardest by the stamp tax. Again, all this adds up to a $1.6 billion tax on the American people if this rate increase goes into effect. However, it could have been even worse. In fact, the Postal Service's own recommendation was for a $2.4 billion rate increase, but the Postal Rate Commission, forced to recommend a rate hike, slashed the Postal Service's plan by $745 million. This rate hike is all the more outrageous since the Postal Service has actually made a profit during the last 3\1/2\ years, and listen to this, of $5.9 billion. Let me say that again. They made a profit in the last 3\1/2\ years of $5.9 billion. That is better than most Fortune 500 companies. However, by law, the Postal Service is not supposed to make a profit, but, instead, break even. Though, about three-fourths of this year already, the Postal Service is running a $1.4 billion profit, hardly a sign of an organization which needs a large infusion of cash. This is the same Postal Service that would like this Congress to pass legislation to grant it more autonomy in how postage rates are set. If the current situation is any indication, can Americans really entrust the Postal Service with that sort of power? The law says that the Postal Service may, from time to time, request that the Postal Rate Commission recommend a hike in rates or fees so that the Postal Service can meet its expected costs. That is, as long as it will equal ``nearly as practicable total estimated cost of the Postal Service.'' This is the so-called break-even requirement. So why did the Postal Rate Commission recommend last month to grant a rate increase, albeit of less magnitude than originally asked for? According to Edward Gleiman, who is Chairman of the Postal Rate Commission, the Postal Board of Governors left them with little choice. The Board of Governors rejected a proposal by the Commission to delay a decision on the rate increase until more accurate financial data was available, and, therefore, the Commission was forced to decide on the Postal Service's rate increase. In the event that the Postal Rate Commission did not act, the Board of Governors would have exercised its authority to increase rates temporarily. Gleiman stated on behalf of the Commission that, ``while we do not believe, given its strong financial situation, that the service needs to raise rates to break even in fiscal year 1998, we may not second-guess them and send the request back.'' The decision is in the hands of the Postal Board of Governors. I think it is evident that the leadership of the Postal Service has forgotten that they operate a public trust. This $1.6 billion stamp tax represents a break in that trust. I urge all my colleagues to join me in sending a clear and unanimous message to the Postal Board of Governors to reject this huge stamp tax.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill H.R. 2029, to help safeguard the men and women in law enforcement who protect us and our families every day. This $25 million a year matching grant program will provide bulletproof vests for our Nation's 150,000 law enforcement officers that are currently not protected. In fact, to make sure that no community is left out of the program, the matching requirement could be waived for jurisdictions that demonstrate financial hardship in meeting their half of the match. That is what makes this bill so important to rural areas across the Nation like my district in Iowa where small towns have such small budgets that they cannot afford to hire more than a few law enforcement officers, let alone bulletproof vests. However, because of the growing methamphetamine problem in Iowa and throughout the Midwest, even rural, small town police are encountering well-armed narcotics dealers. Our rural officers need this protection in order to effectively confront this wave of violent crime sweeping across the heartland. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to protect our men and women in law enforcement.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just wanted to make a couple of points. I serve on the Speaker's drug task force. Anyone who has looked for a moment about drug usage with children and how they start, there are two key components: Number one, the risk, the risk of what is going to happen to them. They are going to get sick or it is going to kill them. Number two is the peer pressure or the moral authority that drug use is wrong. Now, if we, as a Federal Government, use taxpayer dollars to say to kids it is okay if they use drugs as long as they use a clean needle and we are going to pay for it, what message does that send to our kids who are facing very difficult decisions today? If we tell kids that, hey, it might not be good, mom and dad do not like it, but the peer pressure is not there because the Federal Government says it is okay, we are going to subsidize their drug use, it is wrong. And I support this bill 100 percent.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two fallen heroes from Albert City, Iowa. Tom Archer and Larry Walsh, both volunteer firefighters with the Albert City Fire Department, were taken from us in the line of duty on April 9. They were fighting a propane tank fire when an unexpected and horrific explosion claimed their lives. The explosion also injured six other firefighters and a deputy sheriff. Both of these men were true heroes in every sense of the word. Between them they had served for nearly 30 years as volunteer firefighters to protect the lives and the property of their neighbors, their families and their communities. Larry Walsh and Tom Archer volunteered because they cared. They volunteered because they cared enough to risk their lives whenever called upon. They volunteered because they cared enough to interrupt their jobs, their meals and their precious time with their families. They volunteered because they cared about protecting the property, the safety and the lives of their neighbors in times of need, a need that could have arisen at any time in the day or night or any day of the year. Tom Archer and Larry Walsh were two of the Nation's finest volunteer firefighters, a group of men and women who inspire so many by the brave actions they take in and for their communities. Volunteer firefighters are uniquely small town and rural American. They provide a quality protection that their communities would never be able to afford without their dedication. This evening, I am asking that all Americans take a moment to remember Tom Archer, his wife Kelly, and their 2 children, Cody and Tanner, and to remember Larry Walsh, his wife Valerie, their four children, Angela, Lindsey, Jason and Shannon, in our prayers. May we remember Tom Archer and Larry Walsh in our hearts as fathers, husbands and two of America's greatest heroes. May they rest in peace in God's hands. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the Chairman of the Congressional Fire and EMS Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his excellent statement.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the men and women of the Air National Guard's 185th Fighter Wing based out of Sioux City, Iowa. Last week, members of the 185th began a month-long deployment to Kuwait to assist in the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Iraq. Each member of the 185th that is participating in this mission has volunteered for this duty. This nationally recognized group of men and women are among the finest of America's defenders and Siouxlanders are very proud to be recognized as their home base. The 185th exemplifies the importance of Guard and Reserve units throughout this country in ensuring the readiness of our Nation's national defense. They are men and women who unselfishly take time away from their families and their civilian roles in defense of freedom. In addition to the members of the 185th, I would also like to recognize the family members of the men and women who serve in Guard and Reserve units. Many times, the difficulty of their sacrifices of time away from their loved ones is not properly acknowledged. I want those families to know that we are praying for a successful mission for the 185th and for the safe return home of their loved ones. Again, I want to say we are praying for their safe return from Kuwait.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, for all of his very hard work, and the ranking member that did such a great job, and I think the Members should be aware that we would not have any problems on this bill if it were not for extraneous provisions that were brought in. This committee has worked very, very hard and on a bipartisan basis to get a very good bill to the floor, and I too, would like to commend the staff for doing a tremendous job. It has been a real pleasure in my first year on the subcommittee to work with such a professional staff, and they have done a great job. Just some of the provisions in the bill and reasons I think that all Members should strongly support this bill: When we talk about the COPS Program, it does continue the funding at $1.4 billion for the 100,000 new police officers on the street. But very important to me is the fact that it increases from 10 to 20 percent the COPS More Program. Many of the communities in my district cannot afford the COPS Program to put additional officers on the force and then 3 years later have to take over the funding. They just simply do not have it in their budget. So the COPS More Program is extremely important, that they can buy technology and equipment that they so desperately need. The COPS Program also establishes four innovative new programs. There is $35 million for law enforcement technology grants, $35 million for drug enforcement grants, $34 million for methamphetamine initiatives, which is a problem that has exploded in the upper Midwest and in Iowa in my district; also, $1 million for police recruitment programs. In the Office of the Justice programs, which are increased from $118 to $173 million, it includes a very important provision. There is $25 million for a new national sex offender registry, extremely important, I think, in this day and age. As far as the State and local law enforcement assistance, it is increased dramatically, about $500 million, the highest level ever on the Byrne grants, and the Weed & Seed programs establish a new $250 million juvenile crime block grant and increases by $75 million the Violence Against Women grants, which is up to $271 million. Again, that is increased by $75 million. There is $720 million for State prison grants; when we talked about truth-in-sentencing, very, very important. As far as funding for the INS, that is increased from $2.1 to about $2.5 billion, and that includes funding for improved INS fingerprinting equipment, requires fingerprinting services must be conducted by INS agents or law enforcement agents. If my colleagues remember, last year, we had testimony that Pookie's Bar & Grill in California was doing fingerprinting for us, paid by the tax dollars to fingerprint potential U.S. citizens. And it also guarantees that citizenship cannot be granted without a full and completed FBI background check, and the reason for this, my colleagues, is in the rush last year to have more citizens register to vote, especially in California, there were 186,000 people who were given citizenship last year without an FBI background check. By any standard, when we talked about sampling, about 20 percent of those people normally are convicted felons. That means, in a conservative way, there are over 30,000 convicted felons who are given citizenship. This will put a stop to that, and I urge support of this bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I guess being in the soybean business, we do count a few beans there. But I think we have to look at what this debate really is all about. We are talking about the census, but really what it gets down to is money and power. It really gets down to the debate of whether we want those things distributed in a fair and honest manner or if we want someone possibly with political motivation to guess at where those things go. No. 1, with the money, as everyone here knows, and I do not know if the folks at home know that where the Federal dollars are distributed is based on the count, would we rather have an actual real count to know that we are getting our share of Federal dollars or would we like a bureaucrat here in Washington to guess at it? As far as power, it has to do with how many Representatives we have from our States. If our State is kind of on the bubble here as to whether we are going to lose a seat or gain a seat, do we want that determined by an actual real count or do we want a bureaucrat here in Washington to make that determination for us and mute our voices? It is simply wrong to go that route. I do not necessarily say that there is going to be politics involved in this census or this guessing that we are proposing do here, but let us look at the record. Has this administration politicized any other departments in government? Look at the FBI. There are 900 files of private citizens for political reasons in the White House today. They brought in over a million citizens last year for the election and did not check the background, for political reasons, of 180,000 of them. There are 30,000 convicted felons in this country because they politically wanted to get more people registered to vote. Would they politicize the census? What do my colleagues think? We need an honest, fair, real, legal, and constitutional census, and that means to count real people.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for yielding. I have followed with great interest the concerns of my colleagues from Nebraska because my home State of Iowa shares many of the same problems. As a member of the appropriations subcommittee which funds INS and other Department of Justice agencies, I recognize the budgetary constraints and limitations that face our law enforcement agencies. During the debate on the immigration reform bill last year, I successfully offered an amendment mandating the INS coordinate its activities with local and State agencies. This cooperation of local, State, and Federal agents will bring efficient and thorough protection to our urban and rural areas, especially in States with few INS officers. I want to highlight also the work of the Tri-State Drug Task Force, headquartered in Sioux City, IA, as an example of effective coordination. The task force has worked tirelessly to stem the flow of illegal drugs to Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota by coordinating local police, sheriffs' offices, and Federal agents from the INS, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Marshal's Service.

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the opportunity to speak. It has been a real privilege to be on this subcommittee under the chairman's leadership and to work in a bipartisan way to really address a lot of very, very critical problems that we have nationwide, but in particular for me in Iowa. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] mentioned methamphetamines, and to me, this is a horrible problem that is exploding in the Upper Midwest, and the work that we are doing in this bill will help us tremendously as far as enforcement, when we look at the tri-State drug task force we have in Sioux City and being able to beef up those efforts to deal with this problem that is going to be devastating to our young people and really change the whole fabric of society in our area. This is something that I am very proud that this bill addresses. Also, the question of more INS agents in our part of the country. A lot of people do not think Iowa has much of a problem. Well, the fact of the matter is we have a dramatic increase of illegals brought in by the attraction of certain industries, and we have been able to in this bill, after the completion of this bill, will have 12 INS agents in the State of Iowa where previously we have had none, and it is a severe problem. We will have a colloquy later on talking about INS and the problems we have. But this bill goes a long way toward addressing other concerns we have, obviously, with agriculture, as far as trade and small business; extremely important to us, and obviously, with the State Department, too, and our relationships around the world to be able to continue fair and equal trade is very important. Just maybe a second about the census. I believe that we have to have an actual count, that that is what the Constitution says, and this bill certainly follows what is constitutionally mandated.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to obviously stand here in support of the Balanced Budget Act and the provisions as far as the taxes. But one thing that is very, very important to the State of Iowa and all rural parts of this country is the reimbursement changes that are made in Medicare. In my congressional district, our reimbursement averages about $311 per person per month. In some of the urban parts of the country, it is $750 per person per month. In those areas, seniors have the option in their health care for eyeglasses, hearing aids, prescription drugs, even memberships at health clubs. We have none of that available. In this act we finally address the inequity between rural and urban parts of this country with the base now going to $367. It is extremely positive. I want to thank the committee and all the people who worked so very hard on this to address this real problem. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Balanced Budget Act as it comes before this body for a vote. Although this bill includes some items that I support and others that I would have preferred to have been left out, we should all recognize the bill as a product of bipartisan compromise and achievement. I am especially proud of the work this House and the Senate have done to increase Medicare choices for seniors. Bring equity to seniors from rural areas, like northwest Iowa, has been a priority of mine since I've been in Congress. I want to ensure that seniors in rural northwest Iowa are going to enjoy Medicare benefits not just in the next couple of years, but for the next generation and beyond. The majority party of this Congress has repeatedly vowed to bring choices to seniors as part of Medicare reform. One of those choices that has been denied up until now has been managed care for rural seniors. However, fulfilling a commitment made in the budget resolution earlier this spring, this Balanced Budget Act makes substantial reforms of the way the Medicare Program pays managed care plans. Iowa seniors have paid into the Medicare System and have every right to expect efficient health care coverage. Unfortunately, the current Medicare System has always comparatively overcompensated urban areas in regard to the Medicare reimbursement rate at the expense of rural States like Iowa. By efficiently utilizing our health services in the past, the current Medicare law punishes Iowa seniors through low reimbursement rates. Some urban areas receive 2\1/2\ times the reimbursement rate per person than rural areas like northwest Iowa do. The budget agreement will immediately establish a payment floor of $367 per month per beneficiary, which represents a tremendous increase for some Iowa seniors who are currently allowed $250 per month. The Balanced Budget Act also includes a 50/50 local/national blended payment rate for health plans beyond 1998. This blend will gradually bring the reimbursement rate for rural areas more in line with the rate of increase in urban areas, a goal of fundamental fairness. Bringing fairness and equity to the Medicare System has always been my agenda, along with Members from both sides of the aisle from rural parts of the country. Iowa Medicare beneficiaries deserve the same options and benefits as any other seniors in the country. I am proud to say that the Balanced Budget Act increases choices for Iowa seniors, and brings equity to the Medicare Reimbursement System.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I spoke the other evening on this subject, and there is a lot been made about the WIC program and caring for women, infants and children. There is plenty of money already in the bill for that, more than what is needed as far as the carryover. But I think one thing that is being very much forgotten here is the women, infants and children of farm families that they are going to destroy by taking away an opportunity for them to protect the risks that they have out there. Mr. Chairman, when we look at the hope and dream of a small family farm which is made up, by the way, of women, infants and children, they would rather have them apparently go on the welfare rolls than they would to survive in their businesses. All we are asking for is the opportunity for these people, these small farm families, to protect their risk so that they do not have to get on a Government program, so that we do not have to have disaster bills which cost us billions of dollars every year. If my colleagues want to think about women, infants and children, why do they not think about those on family farms?