Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure where to start here, because I think everyone should be informed, I guess, in their statements. And the fact of the matter is, on the WIC Program the administration says we need about a 2\1/2\ percent carryover. The bill, with the current funding, has over 3 percent carryover funds. There is more than enough money in the WIC Program to take care of any needs, any emergencies at all. I think the real debate here is what we are doing to farmers. And I can tell my colleagues, as a farmer myself, that the idea of tying the hands of farmers trying to protect their risk, and agriculture is probably the most volatile business one can be in. A farmer takes more risk than any other business on a year-to-year basis, and they are at the mercy of Mother Nature for hail, wind, rain. We flooded out at home this year. But the idea of taking away this tool from farmers, insurance, and under the farm bill last year, Mr. Chairman, we made a commitment to farmers out there. We said that they would have the freedom to make choices themselves but they would have with that freedom the responsibility to take care of the risks they have in agriculture. We assured them that there would be insurance available for them; that there would be revenue insurance plans, new innovative plans out there. Farmers are in the middle of a transition today, of going from the old 60 years of Government control, which has caused the demise of the small family farmer, now to the opportunity to finally make decisions for themselves, to insure their own risk, to create opportunities, to keep their family farms together. This gutting amendment to crop insurance cuts at the heart of opportunity for farmers and anyone involved in agriculture today. We are not asking for much. We are asking for the opportunity to work inside the system. And a reduction like that, a 6, almost 7 percent reduction in the current bill from what insurance was last year, is harmful enough, let alone to take it down to a level where we are going to have insurance companies no longer offering crop insurance to real farmers out there. I am surprised that people who are from farm States would be offering this type of amendment, which is going to decimate the insurance business, going to hurt farmers out there, take away the opportunities to protect their own risk. Apparently, what we want to do is go back to a system where the Government comes in and helps out with disaster payments. And if we want to look at the trend in agriculture in farm bills, 10 years ago we were spending about $26 billion a year directly to farmers. This year it is about $5 billion. We are at 20 percent where we were 10 years ago support for agriculture and for farmers. And I think it is really a low blow to anyone who cares about agriculture.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say in closing, anyone who likes to eat, who likes to eat food, good quality food, at a reasonable price, produced by family farms who care about agriculture should oppose this amendment, understanding there is way more money than necessary in the WIC program already, but you are cutting the heart out of the family farmers when you do this, and anyone who votes for this amendment is cutting out the family farmer; and let them all remember that.

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

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico, for yielding me this time and all his hard work; and the work of staff on the committee; as well as the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] for the cooperation and help on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I think some very important things are included in this; first of all, the sanctity of the contracts that we had last year. Last year I was on the authorizing committee and, as a farmer myself, I know how important it is to maintain those contracts to make sure that the farm bill, that really is going to help all farmers in the future, the sanctity of that farm bill stays intact. That is extremely important as we go through a transition of Government controls in agriculture to a truly free-market agriculture based on exports on value added products. I am very pleased with that portion. Also the portion about funding for crop insurance. While we did increase in the full committee somewhat the funding for crop insurance, it is still a decrease from the amount that was spent on crop insurance last year. But it does maintain a level of funding which is absolutely critical for agriculture, unless we want to go back to the days of disaster payments and coming to the Federal Government year after year for more and more money. If we are going to finally have farmers, who now in the freedom to farm bill have that freedom to choose the crops that they want, they also have to take the responsibility to insure that crop. And for us to cut the funding for crop insurance is absolutely wrong and upside down unless we want to get the Federal Government back involved in disaster bills year after year. I am very pleased in this bill that we continue our commitment as far as agricultural research. This really is the future for agriculture. It is the basic research we need, especially in my district where we are challenged by so many environmental concerns today, with some of the hog lots and those types of situations. The bill also continues to fund marketing export promotion programs that are absolutely critical. We talk about having free and open trade. While that is the case, and we would like to get to that point, we are not there yet, so we do need the Federal Government involved as far as having a way of competing in the marketplace around the world. I am very pleased too that this bill includes funding for the President's food safety initiative, the meat and poultry inspection, and enforcement of the FDA tobacco regulations aimed at reducing youth smoking. It also continues the bipartisan effort to support the WIC Program and holds the line on Federal spending. I think everyone should understand in the small portion of this agriculture appropriations bill that actually goes to farmers, we are at a level of about 20 percent of where we were 10 years ago in support for agriculture directly. I would challenge any other agency in this Government to take those kinds of severe cuts and still have an industry out there that prospers and grows. We have finally unleashed the power of agriculture in America with the farm bill. This bill supports that. This is the right direction to go, maintaining the safety net through individuals taking responsibility for themselves. And I am just very, very pleased that after 60 years of Government controls in agriculture, we have finally freed up what is going to be the most dynamic part of this whole economy, and that is the American agriculture machine.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, my very good friend, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan Congress, and today we are considering the budget framework that will put our Nation's finances in order by the year 2002. Republicans and Democrats alike have often stated this goal. Today we all have an opportunity to literally put our money where our mouth is and support this budget resolution. Within this budget agreement is language that specifically addresses one of my greatest concerns. I know I am not alone in this view. 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. Our seniors have paid into the Medicare system and have every right to expect efficient health care coverage. However, 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. What does this current Medicare inequity do for Iowa's seniors? It means a lack of choice in the Medicare plans. No managed care organization could even afford to do business in Iowa to serve my constituents. I have been working for the past 3 years with other Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, to help cure this inequity. I am proud to report that this budget resolution includes a simple directive to Congress in reforming the Medicare program as this budget is enacted in further legislation. The final budget resolution mandates that we ``Reform managed care payment methodology to address geographic disparities.'' This simple and understandable directive will work to correct the urban-rural gap in Medicare reimbursement rates. I am proud of having this priority included in the budget resolution, but more importantly, I am proud that the residents in rural Iowa will soon enjoy the Medicare benefits currently available to those in more populous areas in the United States. So along with this change and the tax relief that we are going to see in this bill as far as the reduction on the death tax, reduction on the tax on savings, investment, and job creation, there is the family tax credit, something we have worked for in the 2\1/2\ years that I have been here. I am certainly going to support this budget agreement, and I would encourage all Members to do so also.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise this evening to pay tribute to my colleague from Iowa, Jim Ross Lightfoot. I came here less than 2 years ago now. As a freshman Member, I looked to certain individuals for leadership, for advice, for counsel. Jim has been there every time I have asked for anything. Mr. Speaker, I knew he had a great start. He was born in Sioux City, IA, which is in my district, and was adopted by two very loving parents. I think he reflects very much what Iowa is all about, the honesty, the kind of values that I think this Nation needs today and has lived by those. Jim, your wife Nancy and your family should be congratulated for putting up with you, but, also, your entire family has been a great inspiration to all of us here. I just want to thank you on behalf of the State of Iowa and especially the people in your district. You had several counties previously that I now represent. They love you very much in those counties. I wish you the very, very best in your run for the Senate and offer my total support. I want to tell you how much it has been an honor for me to serve with you in this body.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to honor a very, very special person in my life, Bill Emerson. First of all, I want to extend my most sincere sympathy to Jo Ann, the daughters, and the entire family. Mr. Speaker, I came here 18 months ago, a freshman. Bill Emerson took me under his wing and was my mentores here. I was very fortunate to have the unique opportunity to serve with Bill not only on the Ag Committee, the full committee, and Transportation and Infrastructure, but each of the four subcommittees that we served on together. I sincerely cherish the time that I had with Bill here. Bill was always there to answer what had to seem like my endless questions. He was always there with stories about his experiences in Congress, in this body, and with stories about his beloved Missouri. And he was always there as a true friend. My only regret here is that I only had 18 months to be with Bill and to learn from him. In the past few months, it seems that Bill wanted to teach me as much as possible as quickly as possible, somehow knowing that maybe his time was running short. I will never forget just 2 weeks ago when we were marking up the food stamp bill in the Ag Committee, that I was honored that he asked me to give his statement because he was too weak and it would be very, very difficult for him to do so. As Bill continued to battle his illness, he continually asked me to pray for him, and I think he asked many of us here to do that. He kept telling us that the prayers were working and that he could feel our prayers. I will never forget what Bill Emerson meant to me. Someday I would hope to be half as food in this body as Bill was. Also, I will never forget his faith in God. When Bill Emerson came here, he did take me under his wing, and I know today that Bill Emerson has been taken under God's wing. Knowing that, I can celebrate both his life and his death today.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I assume conserving use means if land were to lay fallow, as is often used for resting land and things like that.

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

Mr. LATHAM. And I appreciate the gentlewoman's response. She is aware that like a corn farmer in Ohio would get about $30 an acre and they probably would not even cover the property taxes, and farmers are farmers because they want to produce. I really do not know if the economics bear out the gentlewoman's concern here because I do not think anyone is going to let their land sit without production, but I appreciate the gentlewoman's response.

Mr. LATHAM. So there will not be any additional reporting or other requirements?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding to me. As a farmer myself, I have some real concerns also with this provision in the appropriations bill and I would like to ask the gentlewoman, if a farmer maintains his land in agricultural use or conserving use, he will maintain his eligibility for production flexibility contract without any additional reporting or other requirement; is that correct?

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for rollcall votes 222, 223, and 224 on June 10, 1996. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three votes.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, before me is a copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 107 as adopted on April 24, 1996, by the Iowa 76th General Assembly. It is a concurrent resolution urging the U.S. Congress to authorize construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. I ask that the State assembly's resolution concerning this important project be entered into the Congressional Record. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 107 (By Kibbie and Rensink) A Concurrent Resolution urging the United States Congress to authorize construction of the Lewis and Clark rural water system. Whereas, the Lewis and Clark rural water system was envisioned and organized to supply a safe and adequate drinking water supply to 180,000 residents of northwestern Iowa, southeastern South Dakota, and southwestern Minnesota; and Whereas, five communities and two rural water systems in northwest Iowa, representing 24,000 residents of Iowa, joined the Lewis and Clark rural water system in hope of solving existing problems relating to inadequate supplies and poor quality of drinking water; and Whereas, the 1993 Session of the Iowa General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing federal, state, and local governments to cooperate in managing and administering rural water districts; and Whereas, federal legislation authorizing construction of the Lewis and Clark rural water system and federal, state, and local government cost-sharing to assist project sponsors in building the project has been introduced in the United States Congress; Now therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, That the 1996 Session of the Iowa General Assembly is committed to supporting the Lewis and Clark rural water system and urges congressional approval of federal legislation authorizing the construction of the Lewis and Clark rural water system. Be it further resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent by the Secretary of the Senate to the members of Iowa's congressional delegation. Leonard L. Boswell, President of the Senate. Ron J. Corbett, Speaker of the House. I hereby certify that this Resolution originated in the Senate and is known as Senate Concurrent Resolution 107, Seventy-sixth General Assembly. John F. Dwyer, Secretary of the Senate.

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief statement here. Coming from northwest Iowa and a very large agricultural district, I am quite concerned about how this amendment would affect agriculture and agricultural exports. A few of the groups that support this legislation and oppose the amendment, the American Farm Bureau, the Blue Diamond Growers, National Broiler Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, oppose the Oberstar amendment and support the legislation as is. I think it is critical to look as far as how it affects agriculture, the fact that in 1996 we expect to export about 60 billion dollars' worth of products, and 18 percent of the cost of exporting in the transportation sector is due to the fact that we have to disclose at this time what our rates are but our competitors overseas do not have to disclose their rates. In effect, what is happening is that if when we post our rates, our competitors come in and see what it is and just simply undercut us and we lose that business, but we still pay a premium here and it certainly is unfair. I cannot quite understand why an amendment would be offered, I guess, that would undercut agriculture, the gentleman I know is from Minnesota and has large agricultural exports that would cause such problems for agriculture itself. I just strongly oppose this amendment because of the effect, that one of the bright parts of this legislation is the fact that we will be competitive in the world. As we move forward into the next millennium, it is essential that we are on an equal playing field in agriculture in all of our exports. That is why I strongly oppose this amendment and support the bill as it is.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity and rise in support of this bill. The reason is, when you look at a rural district like I have in northwest Iowa and the tremendous infrastructure demands that we have in an agricultural area, our roads are crumbling. In the last 5 years the State of Iowa has been denied about $87 million that could have gone into roads and bridges, to build infrastructure, because we have decided to spend those dollars someplace else. I am as conservative as anyone on the floor here as far as trying to balance the budget. If I thought that this was part of the problem, I would not be supporting this. But, in fact, our problem as far as the budget is our addiction to spending more money in social programs and consuming for today and not investing in the future. What this is all about is putting dollars that are paid by users to go into infrastructure, to go into roads, to try and maintain our economy and to create jobs. I support this bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conferees agreed to include a provision in the bill that I originally sponsored in the House regarding revenue insurance. I believe, as do farmers in Iowa's 5th District, that revenue-based risk management tools are a vital resource for today's and tomorrow's American farmer as the weather, market, and global trading patterns continue to fluctuate and pose often unpredictable risks for farmers worldwide. The FAIR Act would require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to offer pilot revenue insurance programs for a number of crops for crop years 1997 through 2000 so that by 2002--when the production flexibility contracts expire--we will have well-tested revenue based risk management products available for farmers. It is very important to note, however, that it was never my intent to restrict the authority of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as it currently exists under law to conduct pilot programs. There are two revenue insurance pilot programs currently operating for crop year 1996. I don't, and I don't believe the Conferees, intend for this new language in any way to interfere with the operation or expansion of these existing programs to other crops under the same terms and conditions under which they are currently operating--for example, on a whole state basis. Rather, my intent was to encourage the Corporation to expand current efforts to other crops and speed the development of such products for the American farmer. I strongly urge the Corporation to further experiment with revenue- based insurance products and to do so under similar terms and conditions represented by the 1996 crop year revenue insurance programs. I wish to state for the Record that I fully agree with Representative Latham that the FAIR Act is not intended to restrict the existing authority of the FCIC to approve pilot programs under similar terms as the 1996 revenue pilot programs. The language agreed to by the Conferees is intended to be liberating, not restricting, in terms of FCIC authority.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].

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