Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment in remembrance of Justin Younie, the 19-year-old son of Rick and Vicki Younie, who was brutally attacked, stabbed, and murdered in the small Iowa town in which he was born and raised. Justin's killers were illegal aliens to our country, our State, and to the quiet community of Hawarden. While Justin's murder is the real tragedy from that night, many in the community were further incensed that the crime was committed by illegal aliens. In fact, one of his attackers had been through the deportation process with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Just as in Hawarden, many communities are fighting an increasing battle of illegal immigration. Local law enforcement agencies are understandably frustrated by this problem because there is legally nothing that a State or local law enforcement agency can do about a violation of immigration law other than calling the local INS officer to report the case. State and local officials are further frustrated when a deported illegal alien reappears in their jurisdiction. The only recourse in this scenario is to again call the INS office and wait. I offer this amendment today to empower State and local law enforcement agencies with the ability to actively fight the problem of illegal immigration. My amendment will allow State and local law enforcement agencies to enter into voluntary agreements with the Justice Department to give them the authority to seek, apprehend, and detain those illegal aliens who are subject to an order of deportation. By allowing--not mandating--State and local agencies to join the fight against illegal immigration, we will begin to slow down the revolving door at our country's borders, and will hopefully prevent tragedies such as the incident in Hawarden, IA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of comments. This actually empowers the local law enforcement agencies. They are the ones who are out there every day in the small communities in Iowa. They know who is there illegally, under deportation orders, that they are criminals, and they are in the front line of law enforcement. That is why I think this is not an extension of the Federal control, but it is empowering us locally. That is why it is so important. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield another minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I say this does apply specifically to individuals who are violating a deportation order. It is very narrow, very specific.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], and his staff at the Subcommittee on Immigration Claims for all their assistance in drafting this amendment. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] for his continued support in efforts to empower local law enforcement in the fight against illegal immigration. I would also like to thank my staff, and especially Kate Coler, for working so hard on this amendment. I just want to reemphasize this is a voluntary program where the INS, on a voluntary basis, with local law enforcement, or the State, join in an agreement, and whatever controls or restrictions put in that agreement, it is up to that agreement. All we are saying is that the local law enforcement agencies should have an opportunity to work with INS, to be their eyes and ears out in the local communities. These people are on the frontline. These people are the ones who know if someone has violated a deportation order and is in their community under a criminal act by violating that order, and they should, in fact, have the power to detail, arrest, and transport that individual to INS so that they can be deported. Quite honestly, we have to empower our local law enforcement. We cannot maintain this big control from a Washington base here, and this is what we should be looking forward to, have more people at the local level empowered to protect their communities. Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 68, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' personal explanation

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 69, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Under the CRP provision it is added as far as water conditions on the criteria. I want to know, is there an actual effect as far as moving acres out of the Midwest to the Northeast, or is there an intent, or will it have an effect in that regard?

Mr. LATHAM. Does the gentleman expect any effect as far as with tying up the one-third as far as being permanent, as to what the anticipated effect will be as far as how many acres currently are permanent and will now be able to go into the 30 and the temporary?

Mr. LATHAM. I would just like to ask the gentleman from New York, as far as the Wetlands Reserve Program, you have got a third permanent, third 30 years, and the others are different time periods. Is there anything as far as new delineations of wetlands?

Mr. LATHAM. There is no intention that would be part of it?

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] in a colloquy. I just want some clarification on different parts of this. Is there anything in this that requires a whole farm plan?

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for the opportunity to speak here today and thank him also for the tremendous amount of work and effort that he has put into this excellent bill, and the subcommittee chairs, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who have shown such great leadership all through this debate. This debate has gone on, I believe, too long. There has been a lot of obstruction set up. We could have had this bill done several weeks ago except for some Members in the minority stopped it through a procedural move, but it has been very, very difficult. We have had, I think, 19 hearings. We have had thousands of people give us input. Farmers, real live farmers, themselves tell us that finally we need to break the central control that Washington has on agriculture, to finally let the farmers themselves make some of their own decisions and to really respond to the market that we have today. This debate has gone on and on, and through the committee process, and I am very pleased that we did come up with a bill that had bipartisan support from the committee to really free up agriculture once and finally after 60 years, to allow individuals to actually produce on their farms what they want rather than what some bureaucrat here in Washington tells them. If you look at what happened last year in Iowa, we had two disasters, especially in southern Iowa. One was a flood that went through, and the second was the farm program did not work, and the catastrophic insurance did not work for those farmers. What we are asking those people from last year to do right now, if we would continue the current central Washington control program, is to pay back deficiency payments because markets are high even though they did not have a crop, and it is going to break those people. We have got to reform this program. We have got to pass the bill today and pass it intact, and I appreciate the chance to speak. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, David R. Lambert was appointed as executive vice president of the American Seed Trade Association [ASTA] on June 29, 1990, by the board of directors. ASTA, one of the Nation's oldest trade associations, will acknowledge the achievements of its executive vice president on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at a retirement celebration. As a long-time member and supporter of the ASTA, I am pleased to add my personal congratulations and hearty wishes for a happy and fruitful retirement. During the course of Dave's tenure, many noteworthy accomplishments come to mind. One, though, that is particularly significant is his leadership when Congress considered and ultimately approved the Plant Variety Protection Act Amendments of 1994. An important intellectual property rights issue for seedsmen and farmers, these amendments went a long way in providing the real protection and ready assurance American farmers have come to know and expect from the seed industry. In shepherding these amendments, Dave effectively brought together the agricultural community and united the Congress in an issue that will surely affect America's agriculture for decades to come. To list Dave's good deeds and successes would likely take several volumes. It would be more expedient perhaps to just itemize issues and areas like crop insurance reform, biotechnology, international trade, and export opportunities. The list would continue just like Dave's tenacity and dedication to the American seed industry. Dave will no doubt continue to play a role in America's agriculture. Undoubtedly, after a distinguished 16-year career at the ASTA, Dave's 23 years of experience and service in Washington, DC, will be remembered by many. His work prior to joining the ASTA included a 7- year association with the National Grange. Prior to working in agricultural organizations, Dave was with the U.S. Army and retired as a lieutenant colonel. ASTA will long remember Dave's outstanding leadership and vision. I will always recall how the ASTA helped position and support America's foundation to agriculture--the seed. I will also recall, with great fondness, how a small seed company in Iowa, Latham Seed Co., benefited from his dedication and insight.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. You are exactly right. I appreciate the chance to visit with you about it. I do not know how to explain to my farmers in Iowa who last year were devastated by floods in southern Iowa going down into northeast Missouri, what to tell those people, why a group of people, led by the leadership on the minority side, would stop a farm bill that would finally give them some hope, give them some income next year. Just continuing what we have now would give them no income next year. These people are going to be asked to pay back their deficiency payments. If you will remember just last week, we tried to put the farm bill on the continuing resolution and once again, because of the leadership of the minority party, they threatened a filibuster on the continuing resolution and thereby stopped the farm bill at that time. I am very discouraged at this point, because even though we were promised cooperation so that we could advance a farm bill, it was not brought forth from the minority. We will continue to work very hard and during the next few weeks to make sure that we do get an agreement, that we get a farm bill. It is needed very much for people who are in desperate straits at this time.

Mr. LATHAM. You are exactly right, and this farm bill is real reform, a way of getting our farmers to respond to the market rather than the government control, the centralized control that we have had in the past, and looking at the floor here, I mean, there are three people on the floor here this evening. If it had not been for what happened this evening because of the minority's technical procedural glitch they put in, we could be having this farm bill debate right now and passing the farm bill for the people at home.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman, and I thank very much the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for accepting this amendment, and I would urge the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, in essence, yes, to provide for those protections for the shipper.

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee, for his dedication to working with Members from the agricultural districts to clarify language in the ICC Elimination Act of 1995. The amendment I am proposing will put in place administrative complaint remedies substantially equivalent to the provisions in current law. This amendment will ensure that each railroad operates as a common carrier and fulfills its obligations to distribute cars its equitably among its customers. Under current law, railroads must keep at least 60 percent of the cars available for regular services. This requirement has helped ensure adequate numbers of cars available to meet agricultural seasonal demands. This amendment will enable the new Transportation Advisory Panel to maintain an assurance that sufficient cars and locomotives are made available to handle the demands of crops production cycles and market needs. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.