Tom Latham

Mr. LATHAM

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

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Popcorn Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act which will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue an order establishing a popcorn checkoff program. This would be similar to other agricultural checkoff programs for dairy, beef, pork, eggs, potatoes, and soybeans, to name only a few. Americans consume 17.3 billion quarts of popcorn annually, or 68 quarts per man, woman, and child. It is one of the most wholesome and economical foods available. Last year, over 7,500 acres in popcorn production were harvested in my home State of Iowa, which is also home to several of the major popcorn processors. The popcorn industry has always rallied to promote and market its product. As a result of these efforts, total popcorn sales have grown throughout the past several years, but a great potential exists to accelerate this trend with a larger, cooperative effort. Under a popcorn checkoff program, popcorn processors would first vote to determine whether the program should go into effect. If a majority votes in favor, each popcorn processor would pay a small assessment on each pound of popcorn marketed. The Secretary of Agriculture would then select a popcorn board, made up of people from the industry to administer the program, with oversight by the USDA. The funds collected would be used for research, promotion, and consumer information projects with the goal of increasing consumption of popcorn. I look forward to full consideration of the Popcorn Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act by the House of Representatives. This proposal will provide great benefits to the production of popcorn--and at no cost to the Federal Government.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think the American public should be aware of the fact that what we are letting American families, senior citizens, small business people to keep is about 40 percent of the tax increases that they have had since 1990, since the Bush tax increase and now the Clinton tax increase in 1993, the largest in history. Actually we are letting people keep 40 percent of the taxes that have been raised for them.

Mr. LATHAM. Five years.

Mr. LATHAM. We are it, so----

Mr. LATHAM. That is exactly right.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I think it is unbelievable that they would accuse us of somehow being irresponsible when that type of activity has taken place. If I may continue, I would like to focus on a couple of things just in the whole reconciliation, and what this really means all together. This reconciliation bill is huge, and it is going to affect everyone in the country. There are four basic things that we will accomplish when we get through reconciliation. Number one, we will get to a balanced budget, and the way we do that [[Page H 11671]] is not by taxing more, not by taking more money away from the American families themselves, but by actually cutting wasteful spending here in Washington and downsizing and streamlining this town and the bureaucracy. We are saving Medicare, not only for now, for the people who are currently in the system, but we are saving it for the next generation until the year at least 2011, which is 6 years farther than the other plans that are here that basically will cost the same, but we are also giving seniors options and choice and better benefits. We are finally, after spending over $5 trillion, and I always think it is ironic that we have spent over $5 trillion on the welfare system in this country, we are finally going to replace that, but is it not ironic that that is the same amount that we are asked now to raise the debt ceiling, over $5 trillion, and what we have done is destroyed the American family, opportunities for kids who are in poverty. We have more poverty today than since we started this great war on poverty. The last thing that we will accomplish in reconciliation is that we will again let families keep their own money, that they do not have to send it to Washington and have people here try to decide what is the best way to have their money be spent. One thing, too, we have talked about the big picture, but there are some smaller things in reconciliation that I think are important for the public to be aware of. We have heard a lot in the past few years about pensions for Members of Congress, that somehow there is a real great deal that we get all of this additional money. Well, a lot of that was changed back in, I think it was 1987. But in this reconciliation we put Members of Congress, their staff, on the same basis that all Federal employees are as far as the pension programs. That is something we have not talked about very much, But this Congress has been so dedicated to reforming the way this place does business, to making sure that we are responsible, we are subject to the same laws as everyone else, that we have actually cut down the size and scope of Congress itself, in reducing the number of committees and committee staff, cutting down the term limit on chairmen of subcommittees and committees. And actually, even the Speaker himself now is limited to 8 years. Tremendous reforms that we have done in this Congress, but I think a lot of people are not aware in this reconciliation we do away with any disparity as far as our pensions.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would just like to ask the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], is this not the same President that is worried about upheaval in the bond market and instability of the dollar? Is this not the same President that gave Mexico $20 billion to shore up the peso out of a fund that was meant to stabilize the American dollar and the American economy?

Mr. LATHAM. And there is a lot of disinformation in talking about capital gains tax reduction. I am just amazed when people believe that this goes to only rich people. I will tell you as a person from Iowa from a very rural district, the No. 1 reason that the average age of a farmer today in Iowa is 57 years old is the fact that he cannot afford to sell his equipment or his farm to the next generation and that farmer has not been rich 1 year in his life, but the 1 year when he tries to sell the investment that he has had, the hard work that he has had over a lifetime, to the next generation, he gets absolutely creamed by the capital gains tax, and those are dollars that he has already paid taxes on all his life. But this is a person who is medium- to low- income his entire life, is by some people's definition on the other side of the aisle rich for 1 year in their life, the [[Page H 11676]] year that they try to carry on to the next generation, and it is no different with a farmer than it is with a small businessman on Main Street who has invested a lifetime of work. That is who we are talking about, people who have worked all their lives, have paid their taxes, been responsible in this society, and we have a punitive tax system today to punish them for saving and working hard all their lives, and to me it is simply outrageous. I think it is important too, and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] had talked earlier about the excitement back in January passing the balanced budget amendment in the House here, and it failed over in the Senate, and I keep going back to the scary thought that, because we do not have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this country, that 2 years down the road, 4 years down the road, that the Republicans will lose one of the Houses up here. What will happen? Everything that we have worked for this year will be down the tubes because we will be back in the status quo----

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting when you talk about agricultural policy and not having hearings, we had 19 hearings concerning the Freedom to Farm Act and getting ideas from farmers themselves. One gentleman who spoke earlier admitted during the committee hearing, on the Democrat side, that he had never attended any of these hearings. I think it is kind of interesting, I am sure he must have been listening to bureaucrats here in Washington, but the thing they told, the farmers told us, they want flexibility, they want a safety net, and they want relief from regulations that are strangling agriculture today. One important thing to remember, when we actually get to a balanced budget, it is going to lower interest costs by 1.2 to 2 percent, and when you look at agriculture that is borrowing $141 billion a year, over 7 years, that more than makes up for any reduction in farm spending, and under the bill that is in our reconciliation act, there is more disposable net farm income than even existing law would be.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Medicare Preservation Act. Medicare has successfully provided basic health care for our Nation's senior citizens. However, the Medicare Program is sick, very sick. According to President Clinton's own advisors, the Medicare system will face bankruptcy in the next decade if fundamental reforms do not take place. If the program goes broke, seniors will lose their Medicare hospital coverage. During the Medicare reform debate, I have worked to ensure that four goals are achieved. First, the long-term integrity of the Medicare system must be preserved for present and future retirees. Second, lower-income seniors must be protected from cost increases that they cannot afford. Third, Medicare reforms should provide more competition and consumer choice, not more Government control. And finally, the huge reimbursement discrepancy between rural and urban counties must be fairly adjusted. I am proud to say that the Medicare Preservation Act meets these goals. The Medicare Preservation Act will ensure that every Medicare recipient will continue to receive affordable, high quality health care now and in the future. Medicare spending will increase from $4,800 to $6,700 per person over the next 7 years. Seniors will have more health care options including traditional fee-for-service Medicare, managed care plans, and medical savings accounts. Finally, the increase in per capita payments for rural counties will ensure that seniors who live in rural communities will have the same health care options as their friends in urban areas. The Medicare Preservation Act strengthens Medicare for the 21st century. I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of the H.R. 2425.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, due to prior commitments in my district, I was not present for rollcall votes Nos. 714, 715, and 716 on October 17, 1995. Had I been present: I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 714 on approving the Journal; I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 715--providing for U.S. distribution of ``The Fragile Ring of Life'' film; and I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 716--extending certain veterans' affairs health and medical care expiring authorities.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] for yielding this time to me, and I especially want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner], for putting this excellent bill forward. I am very, very proud to be a cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this particular bill has great significance to me, and I am very, very proud once again to be a cosponsor. One of the reasons that last year I ran for Congress as a farmer and a small business person myself was because of the sometimes outrageous regulations that are placed on farmers and small business people seeing the direct effect of what those regulations have on people who are working very, very hard every day, striving to improve the lives for themselves and for their children. That is one reason that I am so supportive also of Correction Days, because it does give us an opportunity to right some of these wrongs which have been put on the American public and which have no benefit to the American people, but cause great restrictions as far as common sense in the business and workplace. My district in northwest Iowa produces a tremendous amount of soybeans. We have the largest soybean crush in the United States, any district in the United States. We produce more soybean oil than any other district, and that is why I am so proud that H.R. 436 simply requires, once and for all, for Federal agencies to tell the difference between what is a nontoxic vegetable oil or animal fats and petroleum-based oils when writing regulations, and we should keep in mind that this does not exempt vegetable oils or animal fats from regulations and spill plans. The oils covered by this bill are nontoxic, edible, natural, and biodegradable, and I think the folks at home should realize when they are cooking every day the oil that they get out of the bottle that they are frying their food in, this is what we are talking about. This is not the sludge or the crude from the Exxon Valdez or something like this. These are edible oils that are used every day in the kitchen in our homes and we eat every day. This should be very, very noncontroversial. I think this bill symbolizes the commonsense reforms to the environmental regulations of the Republican Congress that we are trying to put forth today. This bill removes unnecessary costs of burdensome shipping standards which should not apply to nontoxic products such as vegetable oils and animal fats. This type of regulation in the past is part of the absurdity that we have had in our regulatory parts of this Government, and it is really hard for me to believe that it takes an act of Congress to state that vegetable oil is not toxic and should not be held to the same standard as crude oil. American farmers have suffered from increased shipping rates and loss of foreign markets due to these crazy regulations, and I ask for everyone to support 436, which is common sense. It brings back some sanity to this Government.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by Mr. Emerson. The Federal Electronic Benefits Transfer Task Force is working to create a new Federal bureaucracy and restrict State control over EBT systems. This amendment will halt the activities of the Federal EBT Task Force which has interfered with States' plans to develop EBT programs. This amendment will not in any way hinder the ability of every State to move forward with implementing EBT on their own. Six States have already set up EBT systems and 20 States are moving to do the same. As Congress works to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy and give more authority to the States, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reduce funding for this big-government task force.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am inserting in the Record a statement in favor of the amendment. [[Page H 8417]] Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ewing Amendment to provide regulatory relief to small lenders who participate in the student loan program. We talk so much in this House about supporting education, and every one of us here tonight can do that by voting for this amendment. Small community financial institutions in my district have been calling my office to let me know that they may stop participating in the program because the costs of these audits exceed the entire value of their student loan portfolios. Faced with that situation, they have no alternative but to stop providing loans. That denies young people in my district access to the loans they need to finance their education. I would like to commend Mr. Ewing and Mr. Lewis for offering this amendment. Also, I'd like to thank both Chairmen Goodling and Porter for being very helpful and receptive when I first brought my concerns with this situation to their attention. Finally, I'd like to say to President Clinton that this is one education problem we can solve without spending a penny--in fact we will save some money by correcting this provision. I hope all of you will join us in supporting this amendment and I hope the President will move to announce a waiver from this regulation for small lenders so that small lenders won't drop out of the student loan program.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. [[Page H 7945]] Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. This should be a very easy amendment for members of this House who voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Clean Water Act of 1995 to oppose. This amendment is about the House giving away its leverage to influence the other body and the President. This amendment is about letting those who are intent on preserving the status quo by inaction have their way. Adopting this amendment would be a statement by this House that when we voted for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis we weren't serious. Adopting this amendment would be a statement that when we voted for wetlands reform we weren't serious. This amendment is not about protecting against overreach by appropriators. In fact, just the opposite is true. The limiting provisions in this bill are here at the request of the authorizing chairman and with support of the majority of members of the committees. If we vote for this amendment, we are taking away power from our authorizing committees, and more importantly we are taking away our own ability to write laws. If we support this amendment, we make it more likely that unelected bureaucrats downtown will be setting environmental policy in the vacuum that we will create. Let me say this, even if you didn't support the exact product of H.R. 961, every member of this House should oppose this amendment. If you believe we need to reform the existing storm water permitting program, vote against this amendment. If you believe we need sensible wetlands reform, then vote against this amendment. This amendment empowers Washington bureaucrats at the expense of Congress and the American people. This amendment maintains federal control so that the ``War on the West'' can continue. This amendment rolls back the key reforms that so many of my colleagues in the freshman class came here to make. To sum up, you can vote for this amendment and give away the House's power to shape regulatory policy. Or, you can vote against this amendment and remain consistent with out positions on risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, wetlands reform and private property rights where virtually every member of this House agrees on the need for reform. Move forward on Clean Water Act reform. Move forward on wetlands reform. Keep this House's ability to write legislation. Vote ``no'' on the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding me this time. One thing that really concerns me in this whole discussion that is forgotten is that agriculture and the small farmers are going to take their hit as far as reducing the budget and getting to a balanced budget. In the next 7 years, we have passed a budget resolution that takes away $13.4 billion from the American farmer, and it is not just that, folks. We are talking about real jobs in this program, and I think when you look at the proportion, if you are from California, we are talking about 137,000 jobs in California directly related to agricultural exports, and you talk about what the base closings did to California. If you are in Iowa, Iowa is the second largest State as far as export jobs with 96,000 jobs; if you are in Illinois, there are 68,000 jobs. I see the gentleman from Minnesota up here. You go back to Minneapolis and tell them you voted to take away 50,000 jobs in Minnesota and see what they say. Defeat this amendment.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that in the 5th district of Northwest Iowa, this is extremely important and I support this amendment. We virtually have no unemployment in the area. Our problem is housing. This goes right to the heart of the real needs of the people in my district, the rural areas, and I strongly support this amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Bereuter amendment and to commend my colleague and friend from Nebraska on offering this amendment. The Bereuter amendment prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from spending any funds to implement changes in the corps' Missouri River Master Control Manual that would increase springtime water releases along the river or its tributaries. I have been pleased to work with Mr. Bereuter and roughly two dozen colleagues who represent areas downstream on the Missouri or Lower Mississippi Rivers to oppose the so-called ``preferred alternative'' for river management. This plan would have resulted in exactly the type of spring-time flooding increases the Bereuter amendment seeks to prevent. These spring rises coupled with fall flow reductions would have been extremely damaging to my constituents, their land and our local economy. Fortunately, the Army Corps' Omaha office, under the very able leadership of Cmdr. Mike Thuss, has come to the sensible conclusion that the ``preferred alternative'' is seriously flawed and a comprehensive revaluation of water control alternatives is needed. I hope as this effort continues, all my colleagues who represent districts where river navigation and flood control are important will work with Mr. Bereuter, Ms. Danner of Missouri other Members and myself who are interested in this issue to ensure that the Federal Government's historic commitment to flood control and river navigation continues.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on the morning of June 29, I was unavoidably detailed and unable to vote on House rollcalls 443, 444, and 445. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 443, ``yes'' on rollcall 444, and ``yes'' on rollcall 445.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate up in the office. I just happened to see Roll Call this morning. It concerned me that maybe we have a little bit of hypocrisy going on today. There is an article here entitled ``Party Weekend.'' The Democrats are holding a retreat for big donors at the notorious Greenbrier resort in White Sulfur Springs this weekend. The price of admission is $10,000 for individuals, $15,000 for PAC's. There will be some time for discussion, but most of Saturday is free time for golf, tennis, swimming, horseback riding, and visiting the spa. The Greenbrier retreat is one of six events the Democrats are holding for big donors this year. Mr. Speaker, let us get some reality here. All this rhetoric is quite disingenuous.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. In the past several months, I have worked with both the Authorizing and Appropriations Committees on this bill and have been extremely impressed with their professionalism and commitment to producing a bill that provides the greatest possible quality of life improvements for our military personnel and their families. I am curious about the concerns of the sponsors of the amendments to this bill based on my experiences with these two committees. While I am not a member of either the National Security Committee or the Military Construction Subcommittee, nor is anyone from the State of Iowa. However, when the community of Sioux City presented the committee with the critical need for resurfacing the runway used by the 185th Air National Guard--a runway that is almost 10 years overdue for reconstruction--the committee listened to the case, agreed it was a priority, and included it in the bill. The Military Construction Appropriations Committee evaluates projects on their merits. Sometimes that might result in a few changes from the administration's request, but this bill is under budget, it is properly authorized, and it was put together by a chairwoman whose only concern is producing the best possible bill. I am as tough on unnecessary military spending as any Member of this Congress, but the facts concerning the critical needs in this area speak for themselves. Thanks to Chairwoman Vucanovich, the families of pilots who fly in the 185th will not have to worry whether their loved ones will be working under unsafe conditions any longer. I applaud her work and support this bill.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Owens budget, and in support of the Budget Committee's budget. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the budget alternative offered by Mr. Owens and in support of the Budget Committee's balanced budget resolution. While I disagree with almost all of the specifics of this budget, I commend the author for having the courage to put on paper what the President and leadership on the other side of the aisle only dream about. Massive tax increases, massive spending increases on virtually every part of the Federal budget, dismantling cuts in national security. However, at least you have had the courage to participate in the debate. It is a sad commentary that the leadership of your party has chosen to stand on the sidelines. I would like to say a few words to my colleagues who have produced this budget and the earlier coalition budget as you consider whether to support final passage of a balanced budget. After 25 years the time has come to stop pouring ever-increasing debt obligations on our children and grandchildren. During the recent district work period, at every one of my 16 town meetings, the voice of the people of Iowa's fifth district was clear-- the time has come for us all to stop worrying about our parochial interests and put this country's future first. Why should we work to balance the budget? A recent article in Time Magazine noted these likely benefits from balancing the budget. Through lower interest rates, more than $28,000 saved on the purchase of the average home. Boosts the average family's take-home income by $1,000 per year. Creates 2.4 million additional jobs by 2005. Reduces our projected national debt by more than half a trillion dollars. Brings our national savings rate in line with economic competitors, and Provides a $500 per child tax credit for virtually every American family and tax relief for older Americans. What do the opponents of the balanced budget offer? We have yet to see a balanced budget proposed by the White House or the leadership other party. Some are even now saying we should never balance the budget--that our children's future is less important than preserving the status quo. They have offered only fear, class warfare, empty slogans, and criticisms that ring hollow in view of their failure to offer an alternative. There is no easy way to balance the budget, and not one Member of this House supports every single item in this bill. But, for 25 years, Congress has failed to own up to its obligation to be fiscally responsible. Today, we can make history and restore to this institution. Vote ``yes'' on final passage of the Republican balanced budget. Vote ``yes'' to control spending, cut taxes and, once and for all, end deficit spending.

Mr. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time, if that is the case, then why are there Federal regulators out today in prior converted agricultural lands defining that as wetlands, changing the use those people have? This is a very important point, a point that has to be gotten through to many of you people who continually think that agricultural land or that somehow we are abusing the wetlands. These lands are in production. They have continued to be. A lot of the tile in here was hand dug and today regulators are saying they are not.