[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2578-H2582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE REPUBLICAN NUTRITION PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] is 
recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I have with me today, tonight, my 
colleague from the 10th District of Georgia, Mr. Norwood, and also my 
distinguished colleague from the First District of Georgia, Mr. 
Kingston.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. You know, it is too bad, after 
listening to all the last hour, the people of America had to listen to, 
and I am sure no one is watching C-SPAN right now, and we cannot 
respond. I also will point out to the viewers back home that we had a 
room full of Democrats in here about 30 minutes ago, now they are all 
gone, now that we have some floor time to talk about some of their 
ridiculous and absurd bellyaching about protecting bureaucrats.
  All we know is that we are going to cut programs to cut out 
bureaucracy, and all the whining and gnashing of teeth over here to 
protect bureaucracies, and you know, as you listen to it, everything 
works. Every program is a good one, and everyone is efficient, and it 
is saving America, and it is doing this, it is doing that. Why, if we 
[[Page H2579]] did not have these programs that, you know, America 
would just cease to exist. It is funny.
  Because there are thousands and thousands of programs in America, and 
I'll be doggoned if the Democrat side of the aisle cannot defend every 
single one of them.
  You two are new up here. You came for change. You came because of the 
failed promises of more government, more taxes, more regulations did 
not work.
  And is that the message? I would ask of maybe our friend from the 
10th District, from the Augusta area, is that what the folks in the 
10th District want, more
 government?

  Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman. I know we gathered here tonight 
because we were going to talk a little bit about our first 57 days in 
Congress, and, of course, we have to change what we were going to talk 
about because we realize everybody on C-SPAN that has been watching for 
the last hour has been inundated with a great deal of information.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I can promise you nobody 
was watching that for an hour. They have gone on back down. We have got 
to win back some people.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Presuming there are one or two, I have to tell you, I 
wondered tonight, as I listened, has any country, any nation on Earth 
ever, ever spent more money for the poor than the United States of 
America? And in doing that, what we basically do is we take money from 
one human being and give it to another which there is nothing in our 
Constitution that suggests that we have to do that. We do that because, 
I think, we all do care about those that are less fortunate.
  Now, let me just make one other comment about the information. One of 
the things we could do in Congress that would really help us is that we 
could get factual information, or perhaps make the Members be 
responsible for what they say and make sure that what they say is the 
truth.
  But so much of the information that we have heard tonight comes from 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their report that they have put 
out on the nutritional programs is a report put out by a lot of people 
who know that they are going to be out of work.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely. If the gentleman would yield, and those, 
many of those appointees, are Clinton administration big government 
bureaucrats, political appointees, who are making $70,000-$80,000 a 
year, and your committees are cutting that out. The USDA, everybody 
complains about the USDA. They are one of the biggest misinformation 
bureaus I have ever seen on this school lunch thing. It is absolutely 
irresponsible what they are doing. You have got a School Lunch Program 
that is going to go up 4\1/2\ percent each year. It is going to cut out 
bureaucrats. It is going to consolidate programs. It is going to 
streamline the system so you can feed more hungry children.
  And who but the Government would complain about that?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. You know, a revolution occurred in this country 
November 8, 1994, and the reason that revolution occurred is because 
the American people are sick and tired of the bureaucrats in Washington 
running their lives on a daily basis from a personal and a business 
standpoint.
  You know, I am somewhat appalled that the folks on the other side of 
the aisle who spent the last, and it was not an hour, gentlemen, it was 
an hour and a half, that we had to listen to this berating of starving 
children and starving mothers, which is simply misinformation that is 
being put out from the other side. But those folks represented a total, 
if I counted correctly, somewhere between 15 and 20 States.
  You know, what we, as Republicans, are trying to do is we promised 
the American people that if you elect a majority of Republicans to the 
House of Representatives on November 8, 1994, we are going to return 
your government back to you, and that is exactly what we are doing. We 
are doing that with this program. We are taking the bureaucrats from 
Washington out of the picture, and we are returning
 the program to the States.

  I have the confidence in the States that were represented here 
tonight. I have the confidence in the counties that were represented 
here tonight on the other side of the aisle that those folks are much 
more capable of determining what is best for North Carolina, for 
California, and in our case, for Georgia. They know what is best in 
their local States and their local counties than the bureaucrats in 
Washington do.
  I was interested, in coming up here on Monday of this week, and 
looking at the Atlanta Constitution. Our Governor of the State of 
Georgia, who is a Democrat, came out in wholehearted support of our 
plan to modernize the School Lunch Program.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And he has said that, ``Give me the money. I will do a 
better job than those bureaucrats in Washington.''
  Mr. NORWOOD. Because he knows he will. Our school superintendent 
realized that there are 110 Federal employees sitting in Atlanta, GA, 
directing the food program in Georgia, the lunch program, and she 
realizes full well that if we will block grant this money back to the 
States, we are going to cut some bureaucrats out of that group.
  Let me mention to the gentlemen, you were talking about earlier, a 
lot of countries call what was going on as propaganda. It is spreading 
misinformation. For example, when they were talking about, they keep 
saying that we are going to cut the money that goes to feed the 
children as if this is a contest over who is most compassionate, who 
cares most about the WIC Program, who cares most about the School Lunch 
Program. But, you know, we are spending $5.9 billion this year on our 
food programs, not including, not including food stamps, and it is 
going to rise next year. It is going to rise to $6.1 billion. It is 
rising 4.5 percent.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would like you to reemphasize that, because as I 
recall, the School Lunch Program came through your committee, did it 
not?
  Mr. NORWOOD. It did.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. We listened to an hour and a half discussion from 
folks on the other side of the aisle tonight, and anybody who watched 
that would remember, I hope, that not one single dollar figure was 
mentioned. They never mentioned how much money was being spent. All 
they talked about was cuts. Would
 you just talk about again what you said about the money that is being 
spent this year and the amount of money that is going to be spent next 
year on the very program they are complaining about?

  Mr. NORWOOD. I will be very happy to. I want to make it very clear we 
are going to spend in 1995 $5.9 billion. We are going to increase that 
spending next year to $6.1 billion, and we have also made absolutely 
sure that 80 percent of this money goes to feed low-income families.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I also found it ironic, 
serving on the Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee that 
oversees USDA, not one of the people, not one of the speakers who was 
whining about some of these cuts have appeared to our committee to 
protest it where the work was being done. Now, there were television 
cameras on. I think that I have got to say that, but where the work was 
being done, not one of them showed up to the committee and came up with 
an alternative. But suddenly, you know, after the fact, they are 
jumping up there.
  I also wanted to point out to you guys, because you talked about some 
things, campaign promises that you made and so forth; it is interesting 
to note of the previous speakers, I just pulled a list of who voted for 
the balanced budget amendment. It just so happened that nine of the 
speakers over here, the last ones, and I do not remember all the 
speakers, not one of them voted for a balanced budget amendment, and, 
you now, you can say what you want, but I think that basically tells a 
major philosophical difference here.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Well, probably the big difference is that we care more 
about the WIC Program than they do, because the greatest threat in the 
world to the WIC Program is this county going bankrupt. I mean, I have 
wondered for a long time why we have not been able to balance our 
budget, and you cannot really tell that from C-SPAN. But sitting on 
this floor tonight, I see why in the last 25 years the party in control 
of the budget who 
[[Page H2580]] writes the checks, the Democratic Party, has not 
balanced the budget one time, and I can clearly see tonight why they 
will not. That is all we are trying to do so we can save the WIC 
Program.
  Mr. KINGSTON. How many kids are you going to feed when you are 
bankrupt?
  Mr. NORWOOD. I do not think any.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You cannot do that. That is why we always have to bail 
out Somalia, Rwanda, and all the other countries in the world, because 
they mismanaged their resources. America has managed it. We have some 
food.
                              {time}  2320

  America has managed it, and we have some food. You are talking about 
cutting, you are talking about spending the cutting. One of the things 
that is amazing to me is, out of the thousands of programs, they are 
all efficient, they are all critical, and every one of those programs 
has a defender in the U.S. Congress, and, yes, it is bipartisan, it is 
Republicans and Democrats. But the thing that we have got to do is say 
no.
  Now today, as my colleagues all know, the U.S. Senate voted down the 
balanced budget amendment. I believe it is a very sad day for America, 
because of that, because if we cannot say yes to the balanced budget 
amendment, I can promise my colleagues they cannot say no to voluntary 
fiscal restraint.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Exactly right, Mr. Kingston, and I could not help 
while listening to this looking at these photographs of those children 
that they were parading up here for the sole purpose of trying to 
arouse the emotion of the people that they are trying to appeal to, but 
really those pictures were very appropriate to be here. We should have 
had pictures of children here because it is the children of this 
country that we need to look out for, and, if we continue to spend 
money the way we have spent it for the last 25 years, we are going to 
leave a bankrupt country for our children and our grandchildren.
  That is what the balanced budget amendment is all about. That is what 
we kept hearing during the course of our campaign over the last 2 
years. The people in this country are simply tired of the bureaucrats 
in Washington spending their money unwisely, and that is what we have 
got to stop.
  And I agree with the gentleman. One of the greatest moments I have 
ever lived was on January 25 in this very Chamber, and I believe it was 
about this time of night when we watched the 300 votes add up on the 
wall over here that voted for the balanced budget amendment. That was a 
great victory for the American people. Today it was a very sad day when 
the Senate failed to vote for the balanced budget amendment, and I 
certainly hope that we are going to get that amendment called back up 
on the Senate side and a very much of a wrong rectified there.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Even if they do not call it back up, it is going to tell 
the American people who to vote out of the Senate in 1996.
  I mean I know the message sent to me was that we want to stop the 
spending. The American people know we owe $5 trillion. They know we are 
borrowing over $250 billion every year, and they know that math does 
not work.
  These children in the pictures are in trouble all right, but it is 
not because we are not funding WIC, and it is not because they are not 
going to get their school lunch program. It is because in 20 years they 
are not going to have a way to make a living because we are broke.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, it is amazing to me that people who say, ``I 
don't want to monkey with the Constitution''; the Constitution is so 
sacred that to them it seems to preempt the fact that the country is 
going bankrupt, and that does not make sense because that kind of 
thinking will not work.
  Now the balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, is part of the 
Contract With America. The other thing which I know both of my 
colleagues have been leaders on is deregulation of business because, if 
we really want to help the economically disadvantaged, we are going to 
create an atmosphere for entrepreneurs because the businessowners 
create the jobs, the small
 mom and pops, and I know my colleagues have been leaders in getting 
business deregulation, and we passed that bill last week.

  Can the gentleman tell us something?
  Mr. NORWOOD. That is in my Committee on Commerce, and I want make 
very clear that when we hear some Members here talking, talking about 
business, they are talking about Amoco, and they are talking about G.M. 
When I talk about business, I am talking about the mom and pops, the 5 
employees, the 3 employees or 10 employees. The small business people 
are the ones that have been killed with the rules and regulations that 
just continue to grow.
  I mean I think the stack now is about 14 feet tall with all the rules 
and regulations, and what we are basically doing is we are saying to 
Federal Government, ``No longer can you run roughshod over us with 
people not elected to office, meaning bureaucrats,'' and they are going 
to have to do a risk analysis, and they are going to have to do a cost-
benefit analysis on each rule and regulation before they pass them down 
to us.
  But, Mr. Kingston, the really exciting part about that is that people 
will now have a way to voice their concern with this Government because 
there will be a process of petition, there will be a process of peer 
review, where we can say, ``Wait a minute, that rule makes no sense, 
that rule is not smart, and it ruins my business,'' and if they do not 
listen to that, then we will have legal standing, and I am excited 
about that because we are going to get this crowd of bureaucrats inside 
the Beltway to listen to us unless we do have----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] on the 
subject of Government regulations and Government knows best. I know 
that as a dentist he practices dentistry, and I asked my dentist the 
last time I was there how many rubber gloves his office used today. One 
hundred, and he said they never did a cost-benefit analysis on it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. That is a hundred for each hand.
  Mr. KINGSTON. But he says, ``You know, we would not deny that it's 
good, but there's never been a proven case of a dentist giving somebody 
a disease from the hand.''
  Mr. NORWOOD. Of course, thanks to the Federal Government, we cannot 
ask anybody if they have AIDS. If the gentleman can make sense out of 
that, tell me after the program. But I will tell the gentleman the 
dentists in this country are paying now somewhere in the neighborhood 
of $30,000 a year in extra costs thanks to OSHA.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And the dentists have to pass on to their consumers.
  I know the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] is a small 
businessman in Moultrie, GA, and I know, running a small business as he 
does down there, the Government is all over him even though he is not a 
Fortune 500 that I know of.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. There is no question about it. I happen to be part 
owner of a motel in Moultrie, GA, and unfortunately my motel has to 
comply with exactly the same rules and regulations as General Motors 
does. We are not nearly as equipped to do that as General Motors, but 
OSHA demands the same from us that they demand from General Motors.
  As the gentleman knows, one thing about my district is it is 
primarily rural, primarily agricultural, and there is no group of 
individuals in this country or no segment of the business of this 
country that is more overregulated than our farmers. Those guys have to 
spend more time in ASCS offices
 today complying with rules and regulations that come down from 
Washington than they do on their tractors, and unfortunately they are 
not allowed to do what they do best for the most part, and that is 
produce the world's finest crops and agricultural products.

  So we have got to put some common sense back into regulations that 
are issued out of Washington, and that is exactly what we did last week 
and this week. We have been dealing with regulatory reform, and we are 
putting common sense back into the daily lives of folks from a 
regulatory standpoint.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I am afraid--I do not want us to miss a couple of more 
details about the nutritional programs before we get off that. But one 
of the things that will make this work is that the amount of increase 
is 4.5 percent a 
[[Page H2581]] year for the next 5 years which gives the school lunch 
program more money to work with, but the administrative costs will come 
down. In fact we capped them at 2 percent. That is all of that money 
that they can spend for administrative costs, and what we really truly 
believe is that we are going to have more food for the children and 
their lunch programs, and that is what it is all about, that is what 
the whole purpose of the program is, not to pay bureaucrats.
  And I want to talk about WIC one more time because I have had a visit 
with a lot of people in my hometown who worked within the WIC programs, 
and they are absolutely excited about the possibility of them deciding 
a little bit how their program might work best, but, as my colleagues 
know, there were about 80 programs in this country for nutrition, and 
we have block granted them and brought them down, and the WIC program, 
the money that we have got for the family nutrition block grant, we 
have guaranteed that 80 percent of that goes to WIC.
  And I think the gentleman told me just today that WIC is not using 
all the money we are sending them now. Did I hear the gentleman say 
that?
  Mr. KINGSTON. That is correct. What actually is happening on WIC, 
there is $25 million in the budget that is a carryover. They are not 
using that. It is money left over. It represents 2 percent.
  Now we got a deficit of over $200 billion. Each year we spend $200 
billion more than we bring in. Under the President's recently 
introduced budget just 3 weeks ago that deficit goes on for 5 years and 
increases the debt another $1 trillion, and our national debt is about 
$4.8 trillion right now.
                              {time}  2330

  So here is a 2-percent cut in a program on money that they are not 
using, and you would think that the sky is falling.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Are we being bad because we are cutting money that they 
cannot spend because they have got so much they are spending it all up? 
What is going on with that?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Isn't that what November 8 was all about? Didn't the 
American people tell us on November 8 that we want you doing a better 
job of spending our tax money? Make cuts where cuts are necessary; 
where cuts aren't necessary, don't make the cuts. But please do a 
better job of spending our tax money wisely. I think that is a classic 
example.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask you this. You are both freshmen, closer to 
the people than people that have been here a long time.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I have been working with the people for the last 30 
years. I am a lot closer.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You already made the statement one of your surprises 
was the propaganda you get, and we have to admit it comes from both 
sides of the aisle. Do you feel that way too, Mr. Chambliss?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Absolutely. I will tell you about one other 
interesting fact that occurred to me shortly after I got here, and it 
was somewhat of a surprise. I was somewhat idealistic when I came here. 
I thought coming in with 72 other freshmen Republicans, that we would 
be able to have a real impact upon what is done in this very Chamber. 
And I think we are having an impact. But the problem that I saw very 
quickly is that the bureaucracy in Washington is layer after layer 
after layer of bureaucracy. And exactly what we are doing by block 
granting money back to the States is doing away with that bureaucracy. 
That is the way you cut spending. That is way you cut Government 
intervention. And we are making those inroads in cutting that 
bureaucracy.
  Mr. NORWOOD. It is called cutting bureaucrats and cutting paperwork 
and spending our money on what we are trying to do, which is to feed 
children.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think the gentleman raises a good point. Let me ask 
you this: Balanced budget amendment, you both support it; line item 
veto, you both support it; strengthening America's military, and a very 
difficult decision on cutting the military budget some, you both 
support it. We are going to have a tax bill coming up today, another 
$17 billion cut. It will have to be probably passed on the backs of 
freshmen like you because we will not get any support from the more 
liberal Members who want to defend every program.
  That is going to be hard on you, because you are going to have your 
constituents coming up and saying don't cut this or that. Are you ready 
for it? Is that what you heard that your mission is from the people 
back home?
  Mr. NORWOOD. It is going to be a lot harder on us if we don't. I know 
they told me in that election that they want this budget balanced, they 
want us to deal with this debt, and they want it done by cutting 
spending. The important thing I believe is that we do it fairly. You 
have to take a little bit from everywhere across the board. Yes, you 
are right we do gets visits, you know that, every 15 minutes all day 
long, with somebody saying you got to balance that budget, but leave my 
program alone.
  Well, that will not work, and everybody knows that will not work. But 
we must do this very, very fairly and intelligently and across the 
board. Again, I point out in the nutritional programs, feeding the
 children, we didn't cut. We increased it 4.5 percent.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. The gentleman makes a very good point, that everybody 
who comes to talk to us about their program has a good program. There 
are a lot of good programs up here. But those same people will also 
tell you that we understand you got to balance the budget, and we want 
you to treat us fairly.
  That is the message that we were given on November 8, the message 
being that look, we know there are good programs out there. We know you 
have got to continue spending in some of those programs. But we know 
also that unless wholesale cuts are made, and those cuts go to reduce 
the deficit, we are never going to balance the budget in this country, 
and we are never going to get rid of that $4.5 trillion. What we have 
been assigned to do by the people of this country is to not single out 
any segment of the country or industry or any segment of people. We 
have got to be equal in our cuts, we have got to treat everybody 
fairly, and, most importantly, the cuts that we make have got to go 
toward reduction of the deficit and not toward funding other social 
programs out there.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Earlier today when we were listening to this litany of 
half-truths, one of the statements that kept coming up is that well, we 
want a capital gains tax so we can give it to our rich friends, and 
that will keep us from funding the nutritional programs. Well, first, I 
think we have already decided that we are funding the nutritional 
programs.
  But I think it is pretty important to understand that a cut in 
capital gains very well will help reduce the deficit, not add to the 
deficit. But our friends from the other side who have been there so 
long, I think 40 years or so, they have been there so long they do not 
realize that a cut in capital gains tax is not for the rich, it is for 
many, many average Americans.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is important to point out that the last 
round of serious tax cuts took place in the early 1980's under the 
Reagan administration. As a result of that, 18 million new jobs were 
created, we had the longest peacetime prosperity that America has ever 
had, and revenues doubled from 1980 to 1990. Now, unfortunately, 
revenues were outpaced by spending.
  Mr. NORWOOD. By a Democratic Congress who had control of the 
checkbook.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The Democrats did have the Congress, but the 
Republicans had the Senate for a while and the Republicans had the 
White House. So I think that we can take the blame equally. Both 
parties are to be blamed. But the fact is if we know it is going to 
happen, shame on us to let it happen again. We know we are going to get 
increased tax revenues because of capital gains tax, because less 
regulations on business will create more jobs, but it will also create 
more revenues. Shame on us for not holding the line on spending.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. The gentleman makes a very good point, that every time 
we have had a tax cut in this country, tax revenues have gone up. That 
is what tax cuts are all about. When we make tax cuts, we give tax 
incentives to the business community to expand their businesses. And 
when 
[[Page H2582]] they expand their businesses, they create jobs. When 
they create jobs, they add taxpayers to the roles. Those taxpayers are 
new sources of revenue for this country that we have never had before. 
And when we increase those revenues, that more than offsets the tax 
cuts that are given out there.
  Mr. NORWOOD. You would sort of think that the other side, after 40 
years, would catch on that you sort of got to take care of the goose 
that lays the golden egg, and the goose is free enterprise, people that 
work out there using their own money, not sending it up here to 
Washington.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask you something now. I know both of you guys 
started out your morning at least at 9 o'clock, because that is when I 
saw you at your first meeting, although you probably had three more by 
then. Many mornings by 9 o'clock we have been to two or three different 
meetings. It is now 11:30 and we need to wrap it up. We have folks 
still waiting to talk.
  Was one of your surprises the long hours, how many hours you work? 
Speaking as newcomers, what have been your surprises? Then I think we 
better say good-night before we get run out of here.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I was used to working long hours practicing law in 
south Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. He ain't going to tell the truth. I got a lawyer and 
doctor telling me how hard they work.
  Mr. NORWOOD. One of the things I have been thinking about doing, Mr. 
Kingston, is see if you drop a bill to get us paid by the hour up here.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Minimum wage.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I start my day everyday at 6:30, and generally it ends 
at midnight. I think that is wonderful, because I was sent here to do a 
job, and I was sent here to win, and there is just not too many hours 
in the day I am not willing to give to it, particularly as long as we 
are winning. I have never seen Americans with as big a smile as on 
their faces as I have in the last 6 weeks going home.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Absolutely. Let me just say, Mr. Kingston, I started 
my morning at the prayer breakfast on the House side, and you weren't 
there. We missed you this morning.
  Mr. NORWOOD. We prayed for you.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You prayed for me. I appreciate it.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I just want to echo what my good colleague, Dr. 
Norwood, says there, that the people in my district are really excited 
about what is going on up here right now. We took an unprecedented step 
on September 27, 1994, when we signed the Contract With America. Never 
before had a political party promised in writing what it was going to 
deliver to the American people.
  We have lived up to what we said we were going to do in that 
contract. The people in my district are excited about what is going on 
up here. They are telling me every time I go home ``keep it up. Keep 
doing what you are doing.'' That is what we are going to do. We are 
going to do what we said we were going to do in that contract, and we 
are going to do it within that 100 days.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I think we are going to do what we were told do. The 
Contract With America is not Newt Gingrich's contract, it is a contract 
taken from the people of this country when they told us last summer 
what they wanted to do. We are going to do it, too.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think you are right, I think this is not about Newt 
Gingrich, it is not even about the Contract With America, or the 
Republican majority. It is about a change and challenge in the status 
quo.
  We, the American people, want less Government, less regulations, more 
personal freedom. We want a Government that works. I think that has a 
momentum all by itself right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed being with the gentleman.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I enjoyed this colloquy, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________