[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4489-H4494]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT APPROVAL OF FIRST 100 DAYS OF 104TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham] is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take the opportunity
tonight to reflect a little bit as to what we heard back on recess. I
personally, in my district in northwest Iowa, which is primarily
agricultural, held 16 town meetings and attended four agricultural
hearings. And, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, the people in the Fifth
Congressional District of Iowa are 100 percent behind what we did in
the first 100 days in the new 104th Congress.
People told me to keep going, do not give up the fight, continue the
ideas and the motivation behind the Contract With America. They were
very, very pleased to hear what we did on the very first day as far as
reforming this Congress itself, how we do business, cutting the number
of people in committee staff, cutting the number of committees,
limiting the terms of the chairs of the committees and subcommittees,
limiting the term of the Speaker himself, and, most importantly, on the
very first day when we passed the Shays-Grassley Act, it held Congress
subject to the same laws that the rest of the country has to abide by.
Also, we received tremendous support at every meeting for the items
in the contract itself, when you talk about the balanced budget
amendment, the welfare reform, doing away with the outrageous
regulations that we have had in the past few years, having the first
vote forever in this body on term limits, something that people have
tried for years and years and it was never allowed to happen before.
But, again, Mr. Speaker, the people in the Fifth District of Iowa
told me to continue the fight. They believe that it is a refreshing
wind blowing through Washington when you have a group of people who go
to Washington and work very, very hard to make real change and reform,
and, most importantly, to keep their word as to what they said during
the campaign. It is a major change. People are responding. People do
not believe the liberal pledge that they are getting from Washington.
They know the facts.
I have another gentleman here, would you like to comment, the
gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I, too, have a district which is somewhat similar to the gentleman's.
My district, which is in the very heart of the State of Georgia,
stretches from the middle of the State all the way to the Florida line.
I have three military installations in my district, two Air Force bases
and a Marine Corps logistics base, and the balance of my district is
made up primarily of agriculture and agribusiness industry as
[[Page H4490]] well as some heavy manufacturing industry.
You know, we cover 32 counties in my district, and I did not get to
all of them during the 3 weeks, but I got to most of them. I had a
representative at some 15 town hall meetings that we did and another
probably eight or nine civic club speeches that we gave. And everywhere
we went, I heard the same echo of what you have just said, and that is
we appreciate what you folks did during the first 100 days. We are
proud to see that Congress has finally done something in the first
place, but, more importantly, has done what it said it was going to do.
I talked a lot about the fact that on September
27 of last year, we on the Republican side of the aisle made history
in American politics. We not only made promises to the American people,
but we were willing to put those promises in writing. For the first
time in a long time, a group of politicians, the first time ever in
American political history, a group of politicians came together and
made promises to the American people and did every single thing we said
we were going to do. And I kept hearing that over and over again in my
district, not only that you made those promises and we are proud you
kept them, but also, like you said, we do not want you to quit doing
what you did. You have made a great start, but in order to get this
country turned around, we have got to keep putting common sense back
into Washington. Something that has long been missing up here. By doing
what we did, we put a lot of common sense back into Washington, and I
made a pledge to my folks in the Eighth District of Georgia that we are
going to continue to do that.
There were a couple of things that were of particular importance to
the folks in my district. No. 1 was the balanced budget amendment. They
were extremely disappointed that the Senate was unable to pass the
balanced budget amendment, which is so crucial to the financial
stability of this country. Congress over the past 25 years has shown it
cannot balance the budget itself, and the people of this country
demanded that a balanced budget be passed, and unfortunately we were
not able to do that. But they have encouragement because of the fact
that we in the Republican Conference have made an unconditional pledge
that we are going to balance the budget of this country by the year
2002. While the folks in my district do not like to have their programs
cut, nobody does, the folks in my district are willing to share in the
reforms that have got to be made in order to get this country back on
track and in order to get to that glide path to a balanced budget and
in order to ultimately balance that budget by the year 2002.
The other program that is extremely important to the folks in my
district was the welfare reform bill we passed here in the first 100
days. I think, and the folks in my district absolutely wholeheartedly
agree with me, that that is the cornerstone of the contract, and that
is the most important thing that we did during the first 100 days. We
have too many people in this country who need to go to work, who would
go to work if work were available and if they did not have the
incentive to stay on welfare, and folks out there are absolutely tired
of the failed and dismal welfare system that we have in this country.
{time} 1745
They were really pleased and encouraged by the fact that finally a
group of Congressmen were willing to stand up and say, by golly, we are
going to reform this program, and we are going to put dignity back in
the welfare system. And we are going to require those folks who can
work that are on welfare, that are getting food stamps, to go to work.
And the blue-collar folks out there, the white-collar folks, all the
way up and down the line, the folks who work hard every week and pay
taxes every week are simply tired of that system, and they were
extremely encouraged by what we did with our welfare reform package.
And I made another promise to them, that we are going to continue to
work on that type of reform in this Congress.
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from San Diego [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. I represent the 49th District of
California. It is a beautiful district that stretches from my home town
in Pearl Beach on the Mexican border up north to the beautiful wooded
hills of La Jolla, from the communities of Ocean Beach and Pacific
Beach on the blue Pacific to
the foot hills of the Sierra Nevadas, what we call the San Diego foot
hills.
And I was greeted by citizens at every community that we were
visiting, very, very encouraged with the factors that my colleagues
have said, that there was some credibility given back to Congress,
something that had been lacking for so long; the fact that promises
were made, promises kept, something that was rare and unseen for a long
time.
And one of the encouraging things was the fact that we have actually
heard people say that there may be concerns about our legislative
agenda, about specifics, but at least they feel that Congress cares and
that Congress is listening. And I think that one of the things that
shocked the people I spoke to was that rather than what has happened
for the last 100 years in this country, where freshmen were brought in
and stuck in corners and not allowed to speak, that the new voices of
the people's concerns were muted, this time for the first time in the
history that anybody remembers, the freshmen, the new wave of fresh
faces was not only not stopped, they were absorbed and they were
actually embraced. Many of us in the freshman class have been
encouraged to participate on this floor the first day, allowed to serve
on committees and actually had chairmanships, which really kind of
astonished people, that the voices of the American people are being
heard and are being incorporated and that we do not fear the change for
the good.
Frankly, I have got to point out that one of our frustrations was
that, as I came in to San Diego and enjoyed the beautiful blue waters
of the Pacific, we also are reminded what a failure our Federal
Government has been at times, especially with issues of environmental
quality which are very, very important to those of us in San Diego and
California for good reason. We are blessed by the Lord of having one of
the most beautiful environments in the world. But at the same time that
I had to state how much we enjoy our environment, I have got to point
out that we were greeted this week to over 30 million gallons of
untreated raw sewage from a foreign country, Mexico, that our State
Department and our EPA department found reasons to ignore and not to
stop, that you or I would be fined very quickly by our own Government
and by our own Federal agencies. But they have turned their head on a
major environmental disaster that is occurring again and again and
again for those of us that live along the border.
All I would say is that next week, when we talk about the Clean Water
Act, that we start recognizing that the Clean Water Act, for those of
us in San Diego County, is a misnomer. We look at the Federal
bureaucracy and the Federal agencies that have administered it, too
quick to fine American citizens, too quick to find fault with other
people, and too seldom are willing to tackle the real tough problems
like 30 million gallons of raw sewage pouring from a foreign country,
polluting wildlife preserves, killing wildlife in an area of endangered
species that is quite critical and closing almost 10 miles of
California beach front.
So I hope that those of us, as we next week start addressing the
Clean Water Act, will be brave enough to have the guts to rise up and
say, it is a good start, but we darn well have to improve this act to
make sure it protects the environment and that the agencies that are
working on this must be held responsible for pollution problems such as
we face in San Diego County.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman.
I, like both of you, I think when I was back at my meetings, the
balanced budget amendment was paramount. Very disappointed what
happened in the Senate, encouraged by the idea that it will be brought
up again and probably passed in the next 60 to 90 days. If not, it will
be brought back again next year.
In my district, in the 30 counties in northwest Iowa, it is
absolutely essential that we have a balanced budget
[[Page H4491]] amendment. And I thought it was interesting, when we had
a lot of discussion on welfare reform, how far ahead the people in my
district are compared to what is being spewed about on the floor here
in the House about supposedly cuts in funding for school lunch
programs.
Every meeting I said, OK, how many here raise your hands if you
believe that a 4.5-percent increase is a cut? And obviously we had no
hands go up. Apparently the new math that has taken place in Washington
has not hit Iowa, because we still understand what real math is and
what the truth and the facts of the matter are.
And people tell us, if you do anything else, get rid of the failed
welfare system that we have in this country and bring back a system
with accountability and responsibility and give the people
opportunities for the future and do not keep them tied into a system
that takes away hope for their families and their future.
Mr. BILBRAY. In San Diego, this has been a real tough battle for
almost two decades now where San Diego County has a welfare system
larger than 32 States of the Union. It is 2.6 million with a very large
welfare problem. And every time we try to do something, the Federal
Government was always in the way of the people of San Diego trying to
reform and restructure this. And in fact, I point out that in 1978, the
people in San Diego were called ruthless and heartless and cruel
because they came up with a radical idea, they said, that was cruel
called ``workfare,'' in 1978. And just the last few years, to show you
how frustrating it is working with the Federal Government, when you are
trying to make some sanity out of this situation, that when we found
there was welfare fraud, we realized we wanted to put a picture ID on a
welfare card. And Federal agents were saying, we do not think you can
do that because we think it may violate the privacy of the welfare
recipient. I have to say that any person who truly is in need, any
person who really wants to participate in a good program would
obviously not be opposed to having their picture on the welfare card.
In fact, I think any of us who has any kind of identification, driver's
license, do we feel our privacy has been violated because we have a
picture?
I think that gives you an example of how we have got to break up the
concept that Washington is the only well of knowledge and compassion,
that the local communities do have the ability to address these
problems, to straighten out these problems, if we must give them the
right to do the right thing. That is really what my people in San Diego
keep crying for us to do here in Washington.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think you make a good point there, the fact that I
have confidence in the local people in my home county and every single
one of the 32 counties in my district that they can do a better job of
running local programs than a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington can.
That is the whole concept behind what we are doing now. The block
granting that is going to be taking place is being done in a very
thought-out manner. It is not being done hastily. It is being done only
with programs that we have given serious consideration to, have
listened to serious testimony about and have made conscious decisions
that local folks are better able to spend their own tax money on their
own programs than somebody in Washington.
And I heard that time and time again. Thank goodness the folks in my
district for the most part had seen through the school lunch debate
before I ever got there. When I got to my town hall meetings and talked
about school lunch programs, we had nothing but compliments for the
fact that we are willing to give the local folks credit for the fact
that they are capable of running these programs. They are the ones that
run it anyway.
Mr. BILBRAY. I was in a community called Navajo where the lady who
runs the school lunch program came forward and said, I did not know
about you Republicans. I was not sure. But thank you for giving us the
program so we do not always have to have Washington tell us how to do
it. We can serve kids more lunches and be able to serve the kids better
because you are getting the Federal Government off our backs so we can
do it. She said it quite clearly. She said, what do you people in
Washington or the people in Washington think, that Washington cares
more about our children than we care about our own children?
I think that was probably the best message we could receive.
Mr. LATHAM. And it goes back, another subject that came up many times
in my town meetings, and it goes back to the idea of local control
again, is education. People are outraged today in the 5th district of
Iowa that they want to put together basically a Federal school board to
tell our local school boards exactly what they can and cannot teach,
what restrictions they can put on and what restrictions they cannot.
Everybody believes that there is a role for the Federal Government as
far as ensuring that every one has access to education, that because of
race, creed, color, handicap, whatever, that you are not deprived of
that opportunity. But everyone also believes that it is the State's
responsibility to fund education in our State and also the control has
to stay with the local school boards.
And I had a vote down in Boone County. It was
interesting. I asked, after we had had this discussion, I said, how
many of you want to do away with the Department of Education? And the
vote was 38 to 2 to do away with the Department, to bring back the
responsibility at the local level, to not put it away to some
bureaucrat here in Washington today, let the people at the local level
make the decisions for their children's education because they do know
best and they are going to be able to help them the most and ensure a
quality education.
We are not going to do it again from Washington.
Mr. BILBRAY. I had it pointed out to me that the more money that we
have spent on the federal Department of Education, the more the test
scores of our students in this country have dropped. I do not believe
that you can blame it on the Department of Education, but I think that
what it tells us is just throwing money at a Federal agency will not
help to educate our children.
It is the teachers and the parents of America that will educate the
children. And what we need to do in the Federal Government is get out
of the way and let them do what they do best, take care of the
children. If any of us had a vehicle where we spent more money on the
vehicle and the vehicle ran worse every time we added money, we would
kind of think twice about the idea of how much money we are spending
here and maybe we should try a different vehicle.
I think the best vehicle is allow parents to do what parents do best,
allow teachers to do what teachers do best and get off their backs and
let them get the job done.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. My wife has taught school in the public school system
in Colquitt County, my home county, for in excess of 20 years. My
daughter is in her first year of teaching kindergarten in the public
schools. I see what both of these ladies do on a weekly basis as far as
teaching kids. That is where the core of our education system is. They
do not go home at 3 in the afternoon. They are there until 5 or 6 in
the afternoon. They are there at night. They are there on Sunday,
working, preparing to teach those kids because they love what they do.
That is what makes our education system in this country so great. It
is not the bureaucrats in Washington that contribute to the positive
side of the education system in this country, and that is what the
folks at home are tired of. They are tired of bureaucrats in Washington
dictating to them not only what their children will eat, but what
school books that folks can choose from, what curriculum they will be
taught and how they will be taught it.
It is absolutely time that we did what the Founders and Framers of
the Constitution of the United States intended, and that is to return
the government of this country to the people of this country. And
education is a prime area where I look for the Republican side of the
House to really step forward and to do that, because by dismantling the
Department of Education, which I am advocating that we do over some
period of time, we are going to return the education of our children to
the folks in the States and
[[Page H4492]] in the local communities. That is were it ought to be.
We do owe an obligation to the school systems of this country to help
fund them. That is what our tax money needs to be spent for. But the
folks on the local level need to be making decisions about how their
children will be taught.
Mr. LATHAM. I think it is very unfortunate that so much of our
resources in the schools today, and I heard it time and time again, are
going to help children who are not now motivated to learn English and
that is the town of, and I am sure it is a big issue with you, in the
town of Storm Lake, IA today we have 22 different languages in our
school district. In Sioux City, IA, we have 18 different languages.
I heard time and time again in the town meetings that English should
be the national language, and we should encourage every one to learn
English, that that is the thing that holds this country together. And
rather than being a melting pot like we used to be, we are a tossed
salad, that we need English, we need English as the thing to hold us
together.
You look at the resources we are expending today, just trying to have
a special teacher going through with each, like in Storm Lake, 22
different languages.
Mr. BILBRAY. As somebody who was raised in a very multicultural
neighborhood, my home town was very, very multicultural. The fact is
that we have got to remember that language is one of the bonding
elements that hold us together. Common culture, common language, common
economics. We can share other cultures.
My community, we celebrate September 16 or Cinco de Mayo just as much
as anybody else would.
{time} 1800
It is one of the joys. The problem we get into is when people want to
destroy that common ground where all Americans can meet, and that
common ground, one thing that is very critical is language. We should
learn from what is happening in the Continent of Africa and what has
happened in Yugoslavia, where people have drawn lines and maintained
separate lines just to make sure they do not communicate. Language is
absolutely essential, not just for the culture, but for the individual.
In my community and my district, a lot of Mexican nationals send
their children up into the United States to be educated, and their
first priority is for their children to learn English, because even in
Mexico, language, the English language, is essential if you want the
economic and social prosperity for your children. Those of us that love
our children should do no less for our future generations than to make
sure that everyone, everyone in the United States has the right to
proficiency in the English language.
That has not necessarily happened. In certain segments where English
is not a major part of the educational system, and where it has not
been well implanted, the dropout rate is over 50 percent. We are
denying these individuals the potential for free access, the right and
freedom of the pursuit of happiness.
I think we really need to raise this issue of saying we want to do
this as a compassionate step so we have equal opportunity, and we
cannot have equal opportunity in any society unless there is a common
language. I think it is quite clear.
The people of California, though, I want to point out, have passed a
citizens initiative that identifies English as the official language,
and let me point out that those of Latino extraction actually were
major supporters in the voting ranks for that, because they, more than
anyone else, understand that you have to have that common bond. That
English language is our common language.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Switching subjects, Tom, but along that same line
again of reducing the Federal bureaucracy and particularly taking the
Federal Government out of our daily lives, one thing that I heard at
every single town meeting I went to was the flat tax. Folks want to
know ``tell me about the flat tax: Do we really have a chance of
getting the flat tax passed?'' Without even knowing all the details of
the flat tax, the reason I found that people were so excited about the
flat tax is that it reduces the Government involvement from the
standpoint of the Internal Revenue being less involved in our daily
lives.
I use an example. I carry a 3 by 5 card with me, this is not exactly
3 by 5, but I use that example of taking your W-2 form and using the
gross receipts that you received on your W-2 form, multiplying it by 17
percent, and you come up with a figure, you write the Government a
check for that amount of money, you sign it. That is your tax return.
The reaction I got on that was just extremely positive, because that
is what has people in this country excited about this term of Congress.
We are doing some things to finally dismantle the Federal bureaucracy,
and to get things back to where the Founders of this country intended
for them to be to start with.
I do not know whether you heard anything about the flat tax or about
the consumption tax, but I have sure heard a lot about it.
Mr. LATHAM. I have had questions asked me at every meeting on the
same subject, at each of the 16 meetings, talking about the flat tax
and a national sales tax. There are reservations about the flat tax,
that maybe some group is going to get away a little better than what
they currently are, and the national sales tax, as far as the
possibility that it would maybe be regressive for some groups, but the
idea, the beauty of the sales tax, would be, and I am still listening
to the people at home on this, but there is a real underground economy,
a cash economy, in this country.
If we would tax consumption, that would be a positive step forward as
far as getting benefit from that underground economy and making sure
that everybody, even if it is illegally gotten money, that they are
going to pay some tax on it as they go ahead and buy things in the
future.
Mr. BILBRAY. I heard that from a tax consultant in my own living
room, actually in the kitchen.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Where you spend most of your time, right?
Mr. BILBRAY. You have your kitchen Cabinet, I have mine. But the fact
is, as this tax consultant pointed out, is that if Members of Congress
could see what the average American citizen has to go through every
April 15, or to get ready for April 15, if the average Member of
Congress saw what happens to the citizens, this cruel and unusual
punishment that we call the IRS taxing system, the income tax process,
that there is no way morally you could stand up and defend the existing
taxation structure.
In fact, this consultant said flat out that she would prefer to be
put out of business and go to a consumption tax or a flat tax, I think
she favors a consumption tax, because the argument is everybody should
understand that we all pay taxes. There are certain people on public
assistance who we say ``do not pay any taxes,'' but we all do, directly
or indirectly. One thing about a consumption tax, it makes everybody on
U.S. territory who buys anything pay part of that.
I will tell you, the greatest speech I probably ever heard about
taxation happened that day. She said, ``Put me out of business. I do
not want to be part of this cruel punishment of the American citizens
that we call the income tax system.''
Let me point out, that tax consultant was my wife, and all I said to
her is ``Karen, we need you to testify before Congress, because I think
it says a lot when a business person says `The system is so rotten that
you should put me out of business.''' I think if you talk to most
people who work in the tax business, they are frustrated with the fact
that the system is neither equal nor fair, it is cruel, and it does not
do the job properly, and it does not do it in a way that I think we can
be proud of as American citizens.
Mr. LATHAM. My district is made up of thousands of small businesses
and farmers, and you are talking about putting somebody out of
business. One thing that I heard time after time after time was ``thank
you'' for doing something about the regulatory burden we are putting on
small businesses and farmers in today's environment with the Federal
Government.
It is outrageous, I think, when a small business person on Main
Street is more concerned about somebody coming in his door from the
Government,
[[Page H4493]] supposedly to ``help them,'' than they are about any
competitor down the street. They can compete with that other person,
they can offer a better service, they can work harder, they can give a
better quality of product, but they absolutely feel helpless with
someone from the
Government coming in and dictating to them exactly what they can and
cannot do.
If I heard one thing time and time again, it is ``thank you for
trying to at least start some regulatory relief to get the Government
off our backs. It is bad enough they are deep in our pockets, but
please help us get the Government off our backs. Let us operate, let us
grow, let us prosper. We will be responsible, because our children live
here. We are going to take care of things to make sure that we have a
good quality of life and a safe working place, but this regulatory
overkill is simply stifling business and stifling opportunities in my
district.''
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Tom, that was not only true with the large
manufacturers, whom we think of as being the ones who have the major
problems with regulation by OSHA or EPA or whoever. Virtually every
town meeting I had, and again, I had small business men, I had farmers,
just folks on the street complaining to me about the various
regulations that the Federal Government has issued that they are having
to comply with, and they make absolutely no sense at all.
Unfortunately, that is the shift which we made in this country over
the last several years. We have gotten to where we have overregulated
every segment of our society, and again, I heard the same thing you
did.
Folks are just so pleased that we have started moving in the right
direction, that we again bring common sense back into the regulation
industry in this country, and whether it is EPA, clean water, clean
air, whatever it may be, we have to use common sense in adopting these
regulations and allowing our agencies to issue these regulations.
People were just extremely pleased that we are moving in that
direction.
Mr. BILBRAY. I heard a lot of frustration with what we call the
Federal bureaucracy. I think one of the things I tried to do is to make
sure I clarify that they should not blame the agents.
The fact is the blame for the absurdity of the Federal Government and
the abuse of the Federal Government rest with Congress, and it is our
responsibility, it is the President's responsibility, it is the
Senate's, but we are the ones who bear the responsibility.
The people who are out there working for the Federal Government are
taking a very hard hit from a lot of different directions, when in fact
it is our obligation to straighten this out. I think if there is
anything else, that we really planted the seed out there, that there is
hope that the Federal Government will soon come back to the position of
being an ally and an aid all the time, so Congress makes things change.
That is a real goal that we have as freshmen, of bringing that dose
of reality in from the streets of America and implanting it here in the
Chambers of the House of Representatives, so that when the laws leave
here, when the regulations are made, they are made always remembering
we are here as servants of the public. We exist for the public, the
public does not exist for the Federal Government.
That is really our jobs, especially as freshmen, this new breeze that
has blown through this facility, that we have to remind our senior
Members on both sides of the aisle that we serve at the pleasure of the
public, and the public is why we exist, and why we need to continue to
listen to their concerns, and not just try to shut them off.
Mr. LATHAM. I think you have hit a fundamental point, and that is is
the Government a servant to the
people, or as it appears today, that role has reversed, and almost the
people today are servants of the Government? It is wrong. The
Government is here only to serve the people. It is a free country.
Talk about regulatory relief, in my district wetlands is a huge
issue, where today we have people from the Government coming out and
delineating a small pocket or pothole in a farm that has been in
production for 90 to 100 years, and their forefathers--my own farm has
been in our family for 105 years. A lot of that ground was hand tilled,
dug by hand 80 or 90 years ago.
Now someone is coming in and telling us how we can and cannot use
that land, because somebody somewhere in Washington or wherever says
that that eighth of an acre there is an official wetland. By some of
the definitions today, over half of my congressional district in 1993,
the flood year, could have been a permanent wetland by their
definitions.
It is absolutely outrageous, and I am very proud of the fact that we
put the pressure on the administration to finally get a moratorium as
far as wetlands delineation.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. The wetlands issue, as you mentioned, is a classic
example of overregulation by the Federal Government. Right now if you
have a wetlands problem in a particular area in any county in the
United States, any one of four agencies, the EPA, the USDA, Fish and
Wildlife, can come in, and the Corps of Engineers can come in, and make
a determination on that as to whether or not it is a wetlands, and what
you have to do about it.
Why should you have four Federal agencies involved in one issue like
that? The sad part about it is that you may get four different answers
from all four of those agencies. I had one gentleman at one of my town
hall meetings who gave me a personal experience of exactly that, that
he had all four agencies involved in his particular wetlands issue, and
he got three different--he didn't get four, but he got three different
answers to a question that he had about his wetlands problem.
Mr. BILBRAY. What we really have to look at, too, though, is that it
is just not about protection, because many times, if not most of the
time, when a regulation is overkill and inappropriate, it is not only
hurting the individual and taking away precious rights, but it is also
not protecting the wetlands it was meant to protect.
The people in my neighborhood would love the Federal Government to do
something to protect the estuarine preserves in the Tijuana Valley, but
when it goes beyond finding blame and you have to find answers, the
agencies just tend not to be so inspired.
I think we have to get back, it is our responsibility to help
redirect this, to make sure that our regulations not only have
compassion, but are smart and get the job done, because my district
wants to see the environment protected, but every time we waste our
resources on protecting something that should not have been done or a
regulation that is being implemented inappropriately, that is that much
resources that could have gone to the wildlife and to preservation that
is not going to go there.
Mr. LATHAM. That is an excellent point. There is no one more
concerned about conservation, the environment, than these farmers that
these regulations are just strangling today. These are the people who
want to pass their land on to the next generation. They are the ones
who are raising their children on a farm that are drinking the water
out of the wells that are being regulated.
They are the ones who want to preserve the quality of the soil
itself, because that is livelihood. They are the ones directly
concerned, and it would impact them greatly if it is destroyed. There
is no farmer anywhere who is going to pollute his well and make his
children drink that. It is simply outrageous.
No one in agriculture is saying that there are not wetlands out
there, and that they should be preserved, because there are. People
want--they love to hunt in my district, they love to fish, they love to
see the ducks come in, even if you do not hunt, but to have someone
come on your farm after it has been in production for 80 or 90 years
and tell you then that you can do longer use your land anymore is
simply outrageous.
It is not a matter of people being against the environment, but it is
absolutely overkill by the Federal Government, and that is what people
are so outraged about.
Mr. BILBBRAY. We have the frustration, the misinterpretation of the
Endangered Species Act, where we have children who were forced off of
their Little League park by one Federal agency, and have been waiting
for 2 years to get to be able to move onto an area that was farmed for
100 years, but
[[Page H4494]] they have been made to wait just because they need this
test to see if a pocket mouse is in that area.
The frustration here that the kids do not understand and the parents
don't understand is ``Wait a minute, I thought that the private citizen
was innocent in our society until proven guilty.'' However, with many
of these regulations, the way they are being administered, and we need
to address this, they do not have any rights until the Federal agency
says ``OK.''
I think we need to look at that. We are a Jeffersonian democracy. We
are a democracy who believes that the individual is a premier element
of our society, and that the individual's rights desperately have to be
preserved and cannot be trod under by a well-intentioned but misguided
majority.
I do not think any of us that ever supported environmental regulation
or environmental preservation expected the Constitution to be destroyed
in the works.
{time} 1815
Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman is absolutely right.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think it is very remarkable that here, Tom, you are
from Iowa, Brian, you are from California, I am from Georgia. We
represent three different parts of the country, East to West and in the
middle.
I think it is very interesting that all three of us have heard the
same concerns from our constituents over the last 3 weeks. Basically
they are the same things that we all campaigned on last summer and that
are contained within the Contract With America.
It is exciting to me to see the people all over the country as
excited about politics and about what is going on in Washington as they
are. Obviously we all shared the same experiences concerning these
issues.
I think that is very interesting, and again goes to reinforce that
the American people did speak on November 8, that the American people
want changes, and even though they may not agree with every single
thing we are doing in Washington right now, they understand we are
doing something.
I heard that again time after time: ``We may not agree with
everything you're doing, but by golly, you guys are doing something,
you're making progress, and just keep at it.'' That probably was the
most constant theme I had the whole time I was home.
Mr. BILBRAY. My district has over 10 naval military facilities there,
in fact, one of them North Islands where I was born. That just shows
you, you may think Californians move around a lot, but I am still
living in my district.
The fact is the military is learning, in San Diego, in California,
across this country, a new reality. They are changing, adapting,
becoming progressive, looking at ways of doing more with less. I think
it sets an example for those of us in Congress and the way we look at
our laws.
The fact is there is a new progressive change that has taken over
here. A lot of people call it conservative, but the fact is if you look
at this by definition, you have citizens who are saying, ``We want you
to do better. We want you to be brave enough to try new things.''
The new majority, and especially led by those of us that are
freshmen, are the progressives who are willing to say the old was fine
for them, but not for
the future. We not only have a right to change things for the better,
we have a responsibility to do that.
I would like to thank you two gentlemen for participating in part of
the revolution that is moving this progressive agenda along.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlemen for this great conversation.
I just want to say, I pointed out at every town meeting that I had
that the Contract With America was not passed just with the 53 percent
in the House here that is Republican. On the average, in total, 78
percent of the Members of Congress supported items in the Contract With
America.
It is not a partisan issue. The change and reform, new ideas, and the
idea of bringing back responsibility and accountability to the
Government is not a partisan issue. It is on both sides of the aisle,
when you have over three-fourths of the Members supporting what was in
the Contract With America. Obviously, there are some things that we
differ on, but the American people know who is on what side. They will
remember next year, whatever.
Again, we have all mentioned it, but the thing that I was told time
after time after time was, ``Tom, keep it up, don't let up. You have
just started to turn the wheel of this great aircraft carrier we call
the Government. It is just starting to turn, but there is a lot of work
out there ahead. Keep up the pressure, redouble your efforts.''
We are going to do that. As freshmen Members, we are going to keep up
the heat, continue the efforts, and, folks, you haven't seen anything
yet, like they say.
____________________