[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4609-H4616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO ACTIVITIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] is recognized for 60 minutes as the minority leader's designee.


                      weather tragedy in louisiana

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin tonight, I want to call to 
the Nation's attention the fact that there are quite a few folks in my 
home State of Louisiana who are indeed suffering tonight. Yesterday and 
up until about 1 o'clock this morning we were deluged with about 18 
inches of rain in the New Orleans area. That is 18 inches in 1 day for 
those of you who live in States that may only get as much as 4 inches a 
year. I see my friend from out West in the audience.
  The 18 inches of rainfall has inundated communities all over my 
district and the districts adjacent to mine, that of Bill Jefferson and 
Bob Livingston and others out West, and we have situations ongoing 
right now of tragedy, tornadoes and homes destroyed. People have 
drowned in their cars as they were trying to get to and from their work 
and residences.
  I just spoke to my mother in Chackbay, and God bless her, she is an 
awfully wonderful and devout woman, and I think her prayers saved her. 
I understand a tornado just hopped over our house and just missed her, 
and I wanted to say a word of thanks to the Good Lord for sparing her 
and others tonight, and a word of comfort and consolation for families 
who have losses and who are grieved in this awful flood that is 
unfortunately still unfolding in many communities in south 
[[Page H4610]] Louisiana. To all of you who are suffering, please know 
that my office and other offices up here are working in coordination 
with the Governor's office in Louisiana to see as rapidly as possible 
that we get every bit of Federal assistance we can to families who are 
in need, and that we get a disaster declaration as rapidly as we can in 
place to help you and your families.
  In the meantime, we are all in the Good Lord's care tonight, and we 
hope and pray your grief and losses are kept to a minimum.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would like to 
echo the concerns about the disaster in Louisiana. As my wife, who is 
from New Orleans, would point out, it is an always ongoing threat for 
everyone who lives in different parts of the country, one that the 
people in Louisiana face, and the threat that you do have those rains. 
She always sort of scoffs at Californians, and what we call rain she 
calls a drizzle, and sadly those conditions have turned more severe 
than normal in Louisiana.
  I would like to say for those of us in California who understand 
tragedy from nature, we appreciate that it comes in different forms, 
and we are sorry you have to confront a different form at this time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and concerns, and 
indeed those of you who live in California understand tragedy and 
natural disaster, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I do this special order tonight not out of a great 
pleasure, but actually with some real degree of regret and sorrow that 
it has to be done. Today, at a press conference here in Washington, I 
announced a call for an investigation into activities of the 
Environmental Protection Agency in region 6,
 Dallas, activities which clearly violated the rights of a citizen in 
my district and his family, activities which may have, in fact, 
violated Federal criminal statutes, certainly violated the civil rights 
of that citizen, and are going to result almost certainly in a lawsuit 
by the citizen against his own Government, and in my opinion should 
result in a dismissal of the Federal employee responsible for what has 
occurred.

  The case involves a case that I cited on this House floor when we 
debated the property-rights bill that was passed by this House and sent 
onto the Senate and now awaits action by that body. When we debated 
that property-rights bill in the context of one of the amendments 
offered to gut the bill, I told the story, a true story, of two 
families in my district who were embroiled in a bitter lawsuit, one 
against the other, and who were also embroiled in an awful conflict 
with the EPA and the Corps of Engineers in New Orleans in a wetlands 
dispute. Now there are many allegations flying back and forth in that 
lawsuit. But the facts as we know them are these:
  The facts are that in 1990 one of the families, the Gautreau family, 
decided to build a pond on their property in Ascension Parish in my 
district. In desiring to build this farm pond, they contacted the LSU 
Agricultural extension personnel who came out and examined the site 
with them. In that initial examination of the site, those LSU officials 
suggested to the Gautreaus that they should contact the Corps of 
Engineers to make sure that they did not need a permit for the 
construction of the pond.
  As a matter of fact, one of the Gautreau brothers, Jeff, did call the 
Corps of Engineers the next day. Approximately on or about September 
1990, I think it was around September 10, he contacted the Corps of 
Engineers, and according to Mr. Jeff Gautreau, the Corps of Engineers 
representative, the then Dr. Tom Davidson, told them that if he was 
going to build a livestock pond on his farm that he really did not need 
a permit, all he needed to do was send a letter describing what he 
intended to do and including a sketch of the site, and that his 
activity would be exempt under the wetlands laws as they then 
understood them in 1990 and as they applied them from the Corps of 
Engineers office in New Orleans.
  According to Jeff Gautreau, in the chronology of events that he 
supplied to me, Dr. Davidson told him to do whatever he wanted with the 
dirt, and the Corps had no jurisdiction over than. In fact, the Corps 
did send, at the request of Mr. Gautreau, who wrote him a letter the 
next day, a letter indicating that the pond construction was exempt, 
and that he could proceed without a Corps of Engineers wetlands permit. 
No mention was made in that letter that he was in any way restricted as 
to what to do with that dirt.
  Mr. Gautreau proceeded to dig that pond. He proceeded to spread the 
dirt on his property, and later on constructed a home on that same 
property.
  In 1993 all hell broke loose. In 1993 Mr. Gautreau was interested in 
selling that home and that property. In the context of selling it, he 
decided to shape the pond a bit more, and also spread a little more 
dirt to fill in any little holes in the lawn of the property where the 
house was. So he began that work, only to be met with a cease-and-
desist order from the Corps of Engineers. In the context of those days 
and that event, Mr. Gautreau ended up selling that home. In those same 
months, the Corps of Engineers, by a written letter to him in the 
cease-and-desist order, indicate he could make everything right by 
simply applying for an after-the-fact permit, which if the Corps 
granted it would make everything right. He, in fact, applied for an 
after-the-fact permit. In that letter from the Corps, Mr. Gautreau was 
told that while the Corps could take action against him, they had 
decided that there was no willful violation, and that he should proceed 
either to restore the site or apply for an after-the-fact permit. Mr. 
Gautreau applied for that after-the-fact permit. It was never granted. 
Today, they are in an awful wetlands dispute.
                              {time}  2030

  Today as we meet here in this Chamber tonight, Mr. Gautreau and his 
purchaser, Mr. Chaconas, are in an awful lawsuit over rescission of 
that sale. The agents who handled the sale are part of the lawsuit. The 
insurance companies for the real estate agents are part of the lawsuit. 
Both parties are currently listed as co-violators of the wetland laws 
of the United States of America, and the Corps of Engineers and the EPA 
are still considering an enforcement action that could require the 
Gautreaus or the Chaconases, whoever owns the land, to take down that 
home, to destroy it.
  In fact, a lane leading to that property and to another property 
across the street is also built on that property, and while no decision 
has yet been made, an enforcement option still available to the EPA and 
the Corps is removal of that lane.
  I told the House that day in the debate how in conversations with 
representatives of the Corps and the EPA, when the parties asked how 
they might get to their home if the lane were removed, someone said, 
``Take a helicopter.'' I pointed out the arrogance of the State agency 
that would do that sort of thing.
  During our break, when we went away to do our hometown meetings, to 
take a break from the 100-day session, my office began to be contacted 
by scores of agencies wanting to do a news story on this awful piece of 
wetlands drama going on in my State. As we began to check into what the 
news people were interested in, it became clear the focus of the news 
story was to make a case that we had not told the truth about that 
story on the House floor in the middle of that debate.
  One of the news agencies, NBC, contacted us and asked for an 
interview. I gave them the interview. I was still in town. In the 
course of the interview, it became clear what was going on.
  There was an attempt to say, ``Did you really tell the story the way 
it really happened? Mr. Chaconas does not believe you told the story 
right.''
  I asked the NBC interviewer if he had bothered to talk to the other 
family, the Gautreaus. He had not at that point. I suggested to him he 
ought to do that. This was a lawsuit between two parties. They each had 
different versions of the facts. He ought to at least talk to the other 
side. He did. He called the attorney for the Gautreaus, and in an hour 
conversation with the Gautreaus' lawyer, a new fact emerged. NBC was in 
possession of a document, possession of a document that represented 
itself to be an enforcement 
[[Page H4611]] memo from the EPA in Region 6, Dallas, which in fact 
discussed what they considered to be the willful, criminal violations 
of the Gautreaus violating the laws of the United States in a criminal 
way.
  NBC was in possession of this confidential memo that was not 
available to the Gautreau family despite the fact that Mr. Gautreau and 
his lawyers had filed a Freedom of Information request upon the agency 
for all documents that should be available to them.
  Where did NBC get this document? The Gautreaus' lawyers asked for a 
copy of it. NBC was kind enough to fax it to the Gautreaus' lawyers. 
And when it arrived and when it was examined, the little muddy 
footprint led right back to the scene of the crime. The little muddy 
footprints in this case are the fax numbers, the fax transmittal 
numbers that appear on the top of the transmittals.
  Next to me is a copy of the NBC facsimile transmission sheet sending 
this document to the
 Gautreaus' attorney. The document is next, the transmission fax 
numbers are right on the header of the document. Those transmission fax 
numbers tell the story.

  This document, pertaining to highly sensitive considerations by the 
EPA that the work was performed willfully, flagrantly, and justifiably 
should be treated as a crime, that confidential memo had been faxed by 
the EPA Region 6, to the Defense Fund of the Sierra Club in New Orleans 
upon their request. A document denied the Gautreaus had been sent to a 
lobby organization, a document referring to potential criminal activity 
on the part of an American family, and the Sierra Club, shame on them, 
transmitted this confidential data, implying criminal activity on the 
part of an American to NBC, and heaven knows who else.
  This transmittal of this confidential memo by the EPA, denied the 
parties under the Freedom of Information Act, may constitute a criminal 
violation of the National Privacy Act. The National Privacy Act, in 
part, provides that no record contained by an agency that refers to a 
particular individual and an enforcement action can be shared with 
anyone without the written consent of the person it talks about, and 
any agent/employee of the Federal Government who willfully does, in 
fact, send a document out to individuals other than the person it talks 
about without their written consent is guilty of a Federal criminal 
violation and subject to criminal penalties under the statutes.
  Certainly, the rights of the Gautreaus have been awfully violated 
here. They intend to file a lawsuit now against the Federal Government, 
the EPA, for the damage they have done their reputation, the damage it 
may have done their lawsuit, the damage it may do to them eventually 
if, in fact, they are ordered to tear down a house they may be ordered 
to repurchase from the Chaconases in a lawsuit.
  This illegal transmission also contains the following language: 
``Restoration should include removal of the House and fill. How to 
handle removal of the house, restoration work, while Chaconas still 
owns the property is under debate.'' In short, it tells the story of 
EPA, Region 6, contemplating enforcement action to order the 
destruction of that house, but obviously reluctant to do so as long as 
the Chaconases own it.
  The next sentence, at the bottom, says the Chaconas' suit against the 
Gautreaus is scheduled for April 5, 1995. In fact, that suit has been 
continued until June.
  This little muddy footprint facsimile transmission is, in fact, 
evidence that officials within the EPA are working hand in glove with 
environmental lobby groups in Washington, in an obvious attempt to 
influence the debate on the property rights, the Clean Water bill which 
comes up just tomorrow in this House, and those environmental 
organizations are working hand in glove with friends of theirs in the 
media to attempt to influence this debate, and in this case sharing 
with them a confidential memo implying criminal guilt on a party in 
America that should never have been in their hands in the first place, 
protected under the Privacy Act that we thought protected us all in 
this country.
  This is a transmittal from the EPA on the next day to the Sierra 
Club, again in New Orleans, ``Thought I'd send a copy of the Corps of 
Engineers' delineation. Let me know if you need anything else.'' You 
can see how cooperative they are.
  When the parties requested a Freedom of
   Information from the EPA, a whole list of documents that were not 
shared with them is contained on the transmittal to the Gautreaus, but 
you can see how cooperative the EPA is with the Sierra Club in not only 
answering their request illegally, but in sending more documents the 
next day just because they thought they ought to have them.

  This is part of the chronology of events that was shared with me and 
my office when both the Chaconases and the Gautreaus appealed to us for 
assistance in this matter way back last year, early in the year. In 
this chronology of events, you can see that Mr. Jeff Gautreau pointed 
out and was questioned further by Dr. Davidson, and the Corps of 
Engineers stated Roger could do whatever he wanted with the dirt from 
the pond, as the corps had no authority and could not tell him what to 
do with the dirt. That is what Mr. Gautreau says he was told by the 
Corps of Engineers when he applied for the right to build that pond 
and, in fact, to do what he did on his property.
  What followed his written request was the following letter from the 
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers:

       Dear Mr. Gautreau: This is in response to your letter of 
     approximately, September 12, 1990, in which you indicate your 
     intention to dig a farm pond to provide water for your 
     livestock in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. We have reviewed 
     your project as proposed and have determined the farm pond 
     work is exempt from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
     jurisdiction as authorized in 33 CFF 323.4, 83 of our 
     regulations, dated November 13, 1986.

  That is the wetlands regulations, 404 permits.

       I enclose the photocopy of this regulation for your 
     convenience. Should you have further questions regarding the 
     matter, please contact Dr. Tom Davidson,

again at that number and that address. This letter telling the 
Gautreaus they were exempt and could proceed with the pond contains no 
restriction on the use of that dirt, and yet in 1993 the Department of 
the Army Corps of Engineers sends this letter to Mr. Gautreau, this 
letter saying--

       You are in violation of the Clean Water Act. You are in 
     violation of 404 wetlands laws. You cannot move dirt around 
     that property. That is a wetland, and in fact you have got 
     two choices. You may apply for an after-the-fact permit, or 
     you can, in fact, restore the site to its existing conditions 
     before the unauthorized work.

In the letter the corps says, ``Removal of the existing unauthorized 
work,'' which later came to be interpreted as not only the construction 
of fill around the house but also the house itself--

       May be necessary if the permit is denied after we complete 
     a public interest review of the application. You can also see 
     in the letter that this work could have subjected you to 
     judicial proceedings. However, after a careful review of the 
     investigative findings and the nature of the work involved, I 
     have decided against such action at this time.

  Things change. Things changed mightily. And as this lawsuit proceeds 
and as the parties await the determination of the judge as to who 
should own the house, we continue our debate on the property rights 
laws of America and the wetlands reform bill that will be before us 
tomorrow.
  Could this have been prevented? Could this have been prevented? I 
think so. If we only had a law on the books that said parties have a 
right to contest the finding by the Corps of Engineers that their 
property is wetlands, that the Corps of Engineers were required to 
inspect the site before they sent a letter saying. ``We have no 
problems when you are doing something on your property,'' if the Corps 
of Engineers
 would have posted publicly in some public place a notice that they 
think a violation has occurred so that owners might not sell their 
property and buyers might not buy without knowing what is going on so 
they can avoid lawsuits like this, and finally, if the corps does want 
to take somebody's property and destroy their home because they think 
it is a wetland, then, by golly, somebody ought to be willing to pay an 
American the price of his property when the Government takes it from 
him. That is what this fight tomorrow is going to be all about.

  Now, NBC was not the only news agency that was apparently invited to 
[[Page H4612]] do a story on the Chaconas-Gautreau case. CNN was one of 
the other agencies, CNN Headline News, to be precise. Unlike NBC, they 
did their little story while we were away. I did not get a chance to 
get interviewed on that story. We were away at home.
  But in that story, CNN proceeded to show this horrible wetlands case, 
to interview Mr. Chaconas. They did not contact the lawyers, as the 
Gautreaus suggested, to clear an interview with the Gautreaus. They 
only interviewed Mr. Chaconas. Then they proceeded to do a hit piece. 
Why do I call it a hit piece? Because it was just what we expected.
  Before they did this piece on Headline News, hour after hour, every 
day all day, rather, on the day they ran the story, my office sent them 
all the documents I have shown you and more documents which indicated 
that we had responded when the Chaconases and the Gautreaus asked us 
for help, that we received letters of thanks from the parties thanking 
us, that we received letters from Mr. Chaconas supporting our efforts 
on property rights, that we received a copy of the letter Mr. Chaconas 
sent to the EPA demanding payment for taking property in violation of 
the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
  We also sent them documents that contained information unequivocally 
that indicated the corps and the EPA had, as an enforcement option, as 
I demonstrated to you earlier, the removal of the House and the rug. 
Those were clearly options EPA had on its desk and, by the way, 
continues to potentially have on its desk.
  And yet I wanted to show you this CNN piece tonight. I was not 
allowed to bring a monitor. I would have loved to have run the piece 
for you to show you what they did. In the piece, they asked the 
question, ``What about the congressman's claim,'' speaking of me, 
``that the Federal regulators might force the Chaconases to tear the 
House down?'' The CNN reporter asked that, and immediately they turned 
to Ron Ventola, an employee of the Corps of Engineers in New Orleans, 
LA, who, by the way, signed that letter, who signed the letter 
indicating that the property, the pond, was exempt under the wetlands 
laws, Mr. Ron Ventola.
                              {time}  2045

  Mr. Ron Ventola appears on CNN in this piece and, he says, ``Oh, no, 
no one from this agency told them they would have to tear down their 
house or remove the road,'' leaving the clear impression that we had 
told a falsehood in the House in the debate on property rights. That 
was the purpose of the CNN piece apparently. CNN knew this was a lie. 
CNN had documents that we sent to them indicating that the Corps and 
the EPA indeed has discussed tearing this man's house down. In fact, in 
fact, the Corps of Engineers had a copy of Mr. Chaconas' letter to the 
EPA dated September 22 which reads in part:

       The house is situated in the wetland, and the three 
     alternatives the EPA is considering, a demolition, moving or 
     elevating the structure.

  And yet the Corps reported on CNN, no, no one from this agency told 
them they would have to tear down their house or remove the road. What 
a lie told on national television hour after hour and repeated hour 
after hour in an attempt by those in this environmental community 
working with those liberal friends in the environmental sector of CNN 
Headline News to make it look like those of us who believe in property 
rights who are fighting this battle do not tell our stories right. What 
a shame. What a despicable piece of journalism from an awfully good and 
credible news agency.
  What a credit NBC earned for sharing this scandal to us, for giving 
us a chance to expose it to the American public.
  I wanted to show you also Mr. Chaconas' request to the EPA dated 
September 22, 1994. Here is his words to the EPA on that date:

       We received the wetlands determination from the Corps. The 
     Federal Government has thus taken control of a majority of 
     our property in the residence. We consider this a taking of 
     our private property for the public good and demand fair and 
     just compensation from the EPA. Consider this as my formal 
     request.

  Does that sound like a gentleman who would testify in the Senate 
against the property rights bill? Does that sound like a gentleman who 
would go to a House committee and attempt to testify against the 
property rights bill allegating all the facts that he thought were 
correct in his lawsuit? A gentleman who made a formal demand on EPA for 
payment for taking his property? A gentleman who wrote us, in fact, on 
June 27 that property rights are very important, and my wife and I 
continue to support your efforts. The point is that buyers and existing 
land owners are slipping through the cracks because of Federal 
Government agencies, EPA and the Corps, are really doing a poor job of 
enforcement. June 27.
  Same letter, June 27 again:

       Please commend Mr. Constien who is my district director. 
     His efforts have served to diminish my role as a coviolator. 
     EPA did assure me, as long as I cooperated with them and 
     allowed access to the property for corrective measures, they 
     would not seek damages from me. Well who would they seek 
     damages from?

  You get the picture? Cooperate with us or else.
  Well, the Chaconases apparently have started to cooperated with the 
EPA and the Sierra Club. Here again on June 28. I listened to Mike 
Reagan's show on 11:50 a.m., WJBO, on Monday afternoon, caught the 
taped show you guest-hosted for Mr. Reagan. I was quite impressed. It 
was at this time we caught the reference to our case that you had 
mentioned on the air. You doing a good job in Washington, my birth 
place. Everybody down here is talking about it.
  Does this sound like a man going to the Senate and attack this 
Congressman for misrepresenting his case? What happened? Who poisoned 
Mr. Chaconas' mind? What made him come out against property rights when 
he was demanding payment for the taking of his property of the 
September 22 letter? Who suggested to him that his Congressman was no 
longer on his side?
  Well, in that memo, in that first memo, we get a hint, we get a hint. 
How to handle removal of a house or restoration work while the 
Chaconases still own the property is still under debate. We get a hint 
of what happened. Cooperate or else. We will enforce the demolition 
order against the Gautreaus, but maybe not against the Chaconases. 
Cooperate with us.
  Now I am sure Mr. Chaconas would not ever admit that he was coerced 
into changing his mind so dramatically, that he came to Washington, 
just on his own, that he did not have the help of the Sierra Club, that 
he did not have the cooperative arm of the EPA, whom I have just shown 
has violated Federal privacy laws in this case, in Dallas Region 6. I 
am sure he would say that. I do not blame him frankly. He is trying to 
protect his home, and the gun of regulation is pointed at his head. We 
could demolish your home. Cooperate with us, and we will not penalize 
you. Maybe the Gautreaus, but not you.
  What a story. What a disgusting story of a person's own government 
treating him that way. What a rotten mess. What an example for us as we 
tomorrow take up the wetlands reform bill of the Clean Water Act, as we 
try once and for all to reign in those Federal agents and agencies who 
dare to treat people that way, who violate the Gautreau's privacy 
rights, who inflict these after-the-fact determinations of wetlands on 
people and threaten them with demolition of their home and who, in my 
opinion, end up coercing people to change their opinion on an issue and 
to cooperate with them or else face the disaster of destruction of 
their property. What a mess. What an awful mess.
  Tomorrow we get a chance to change it. Tomorrow we begin the debate 
on the Clean Water Act which contains those regulations, those 404 
wetlands laws that are so often abused, so often are used to coerce 
people in my State and all over America, so often end up taking 
property away from people without just compensation. But worse than 
that, in this case putting one neighbor in a lawsuit against his 
neighbor, making it almost impossible then for them to live next to one 
another, putting them now in a lawsuit against their own government, 
and perhaps, if the Justice Department and Carol Browner do their job, 
perhaps costing some people their job in Dallas.
  And I have called upon Carol Browner to clean up that mess, and, if 
[[Page H4613]] she cannot clean up that mess in her agency, maybe she 
ought to think about cleaning out her desk. But we in America ought to 
say enough is enough, and Federal agencies ought not be our master. The 
government ought to be our servant again in this country, and then when 
the government becomes such a master that it can so willingly violate 
our rights, as they did the Gautreaus' in this case, that it can create 
such a mess as it has in Ascension Parish, Louisiana, and when it can 
work so hand and glove with lobbyists here in Washington, DC bent on 
influencing this issue, who then work hand and glove with their liberal 
friends and some of the media to distort the facts and propagandize 
their case again reform, then something needs to change. Tomorrow we 
get a chance to change that. I hope, I pray we do not miss that
 chance. We need to pass reforms of the wetlands laws, and we need to 
make sure that property compensation is a part of that law, and if the 
President dares to veto it, as he threatened to do without even reading 
the bill, I hope we have the guts in this Congress to override his veto 
and to give the Americans the protection they deserve under the 
Constitution, protection against employees of this Government who would 
take advantage of them the way these employees have.

  I am going to file a new bill, by the way, to make it a Federal crime 
to do what they have done to the Gautreaus and to do it and make it a 
Federal crime to do what they have done to the Chaconases. No 
regulatory agency ought to ever have the power to curse somebody with 
the threat of enforcement action, and no Federal agent ought to keep 
his job when he violates the privacy rights of Americans and cooperates 
with lobby groups with sensitive memos detailing protential criminal 
activity. That has gone too far, and we ought to end it in this body. 
Tomorrow we strike a blow for land owners and citizens all over this 
country, and, if this Congress has the will and the fortitude to 
override the expected veto whenever it comes, perhaps we can remake a 
relationship in this country between the Goovernment and its people 
again, where there is credibility, and trust, and fairness, and where 
we do not have to be suing our Government, and ordering investigations 
and criminal charges brought against Government officials who ought to 
know better, who ought to do better than Ron Ventola did in the New 
Orleans office and lying on television and who ought to do better than 
those EPA officials did in Dallas.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. 3
  Mr. MICA. First of all I want to take just a moment to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] for bringing 
this matter to the attention of the House. For too long the Agency, 
EPA, has really reigned out of control, and I come here tonight, I know 
the hour is late, before the House, but I want to commend you again on 
bringing this matter to the attention of both the House and the 
Congress, another example of misdeed, of malfeasance, of misfeasance in 
office, which has been conducted by the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  I come here also to commend you in a bipartisan effort. I am on the 
other side of the aisle and thank
 you for your leadership in questions relating to wetlands, to revision 
of some of the laws such as the Clean Water legislation which the House 
will be taking up tomorrow, and again for bringing before the Congress 
and the American people the question of how this agency is functioning 
out of control.

  Mr. Speaker and gentleman from Louisiana, I had the opportunity to 
sit as a member of the subcommittee in the House Committee on 
Government Operations during the last session of Congress. I came as a 
new member. I came as someone from business with a business background.
  Quite frankly I sat in absolute stunned fashion to listen day after 
day in hearing after hearing of how an agency which is so well-
intended--in fact it is a Republican initiative that created the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Everyone wants to protect the 
environment. Everyone wants to look out for the environment. Everyone 
wants to preserve wetlands and our natural areas for this generation 
and future generations. But to sit as a member of that committee and 
consistently hear the abuse, the misuse, the misdirection of billions 
of taxpayer dollars, I was just stunned and appalled, and that is why I 
got involved in this issue. That is why during the last Congress, as a 
new Member of this Congress, I was able to get support from both sides 
of the aisle when the question of elevating EPA from a department to a 
Cabinet level position came before the House, and we defeated that 
measure, not because people do not want to protect the environment, not 
because people are not concerned about the environment, not because 
people have any interests in lowering the standards for environmental 
protection in this country, but because of exactly the reason the 
gentleman from Louisiana is on the floor tonight, because this agency 
is out of control, and you have brought to the House again another 
example that should be investigated, and I, too, demand an 
investigation and will do everything in my power to see that the 
majority acts on your request because again this agency is out of 
control. This agency is so inept, so out of control, again I brought 
this matter before the attention of the House, and let me cite to you 
what they did to me.
  Here, just several months ago, they sent a fax to my office inviting 
me to a briefing on wetlands. They sent the fax, and the cover sheet is 
addressed to two individuals. Both were my opponents in the election. 
In fact their list predated the qualifying date for election in the 
State of Florida. So they used a list that was even out of date and 
then they gave me this lame excuse as a response.
                              {time}  2100

  But here they have the time to send me a fax addressed to my 
opponents with my name on it, to my congressional office, months after 
the election. If this is not an example of abuse of office, and, if 
nothing else, ineptness in office.
  Now, you bring tonight an example to the floor of what this agency is 
doing in your instance. Here is a little example of what they are doing 
in my particular situation. I called for an investigation back in the 
spring of this year, in February, I believe it was, of this year, and 
this is the lame excuse that I got.
  This is an agency that is out of control. And when they have time to 
intimidate people, to act in a manner in which the gentleman has 
brought before the House tonight, they deserve investigation. And I 
intend as a Member of the majority side of the House to see that in 
fact this agency investigates the matter you brought before the House.
  Let me also point out that I, too, had great hopes. Carol Browner, 
Administrator Browner, came from my State, the State of Florida. It was 
my hope she had seen some of the problems with this agency from serving 
in a capacity at the State level that protected the environment in the 
State of Florida, and would come here and try to make changes in this 
agency, make some sense out of it. But it is the situation where the 
inmates are running the asylum.
  Mr. TAUZIN. My friend will love this. This is a letter I just 
received this last couple of months from attorneys writing to the 
office of the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, one of the environmental agencies working hand-in-globe 
with EPA. It is regarding settlement discussions of the turtle/shrimp 
litigation. You have shared my problems in Florida with this and 
requiring more and more regulations upon the shrimpers in my State 
because of the Endangered Species Act. Listen to this paragraph.

       Finally, on a public policy note, my clients are becoming 
     deeply distressed about how the agency appears to be more 
     responsive to, and to some extent acting in collusion with, 
     representatives of the environmental community with respect 
     to the shrimp/turtle controversy. Although Andy Kemmerer and 
     Rollie Schmitten appear anxious to hear industry's concerns, 
     we still sense the agency is responding to what appears to be 
     a ``shadow government'' formed by certain environmental 
     groups.

  The link I talked about tonight, this illegal transmission of 
confidential data to one of the environmental groups, is part and 
parcel of what this is all about, an agency out of control, 
[[Page H4614]] acting on its own, working with lobbyists here to 
accomplish their agenda.
  Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield back, again the gentleman 
cities an example that needs and demands and requires investigation, 
and I support the gentleman in that, and now this side of the aisle 
will support you in that.
  I brought another matter, it is not a major matter of life and death, 
but a matter that concerned me. Chairman McIntosh, David McIntosh, who 
heads the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, 
and Regulatory Affairs, is in the process now of also investigating the 
use of taxpayer money to lobby the Congress on issues, which is totally 
illegal.
  So there are a number of these very pressing examples of misuse of 
this office that need to be investigated by this Congress. Again, I 
join you tonight and make a commitment to you tonight that we
 will pursue these matters. And I will tell you, first of all, we have 
to get the attention in revising this legislation, and we will have 
that opportunity to look at clean water and some of the other issues 
that are before the House.

  But if we cannot get the agency's attention with these 
investigations, we will get the agency's attention through the 
budgetary process and through the appropriations process. Because there 
are many Members, like the gentleman from Louisiana and other Members 
of this Congress, who have absolutely had it, right up to here, with 
this agency. It is out of control, it needs to be brought into control, 
and we can do a much better job in protecting the environment of this 
country.
  I consider myself an environmentalist. I consider myself as someone 
who is concerned about the future of the environment that we live in. I 
want to leave to my children and my grandchildren a better world, a 
better United States, a better environment. But we cannot do it when an 
agency is out of control, it is misdirected, and the funds that it is 
getting are expended in ways in which they were not intended by this 
Congress.
  So we have to rein that in. We have to investigate what is going on 
there. And we can do a better job and we are demanded to do a better 
job because we have limited resources. We have literally run out of the 
taxpayer dollar in the Congress of the United States, and we have to 
find a better way to do a better job with less money.
  So we are demanding that. I join the gentleman in asking my 
colleagues in the Congress and the House on both sides to look at these 
matters, to bring this agency into control, and to do a better job in 
protecting the environment. I am so pleased to join you.
  Before I conclude, I just want to again quote, and we have had 
questions raised about EPA and its being brought out under control. 
During some of the debate you have an opportunity to sit and read 
different documents, and I had an opportunity to sit here and read 
during one of our last debates the Declaration of Independence.
  When you look back at the reasons that this country was formed, they 
are very enlightening. They were very enlightening 200 years ago, and 
they should be enlightening to all the Members. But I have to repeat 
this, and I made this comment from the Declaration. This cites one of 
the reasons for the founding of this country, and it talks about here 
the King of England, and you can substitute the king with the Federal 
bureaucracy and EPA.
  It says:

       He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither 
     swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their 
     substance.

  The same thing that happened 200 years ago is happening today with 
this agency and other agencies that are out of control.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Louisiana for bringing this 
matter to the attention of the House in such detail. I commend you on 
documenting every point here and showing how again this agency has 
misused the position of trust given to this agency by the Congress and 
by the American people, and it demands our attention and our 
investigation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] who has 
been a leader in the fight as I said to rein in this agency. I 
appreciate your offers of help. We are going to need a lot of help in 
that regard.
  Mr. McINTOSH. If the gentleman will yield, I
   thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, a leading defender 
in the rights of private property owners, for yielding to me. I want to 
add my support to your investigation into this newest allegation of the 
abuse of power at EPA. Our Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, 
Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, we often call it the 
subcommittee to cut red tape, has been investigating EPA activity, and 
that activity closely mirrors what you have encountered at the agency.

  Let me stop to say I also want to commend you for your efforts on 
behalf of property owners who have encountered regulatory overreach in 
the wetlands area.
  I have got several constituents in my district who have encountered 
similar problems. One gentleman, Bob Floyd, owns a farm in my hometown 
of Muncie, and he had been farming this land for 50 years. One day his 
neighbor accidently destroys the drainage tile which is necessary to 
irrigate his land, and suddenly a mud puddle developed on one corner of 
the field. In swooped EPA and said he could no longer farm the land 
because this might be an endangered wetland.
  It is that type of overreach and abuse of the program that have led 
to many of our problems. But today we are looking at and you have 
raised a very serious question on the standard of ethics and the 
propriety of the agency's activities in defending their actions. The 
activity that we are investigating in the subcommittee appears to 
violate several Federal statutes, including provisions of the Anti-
lobbying Act and the Federal conspiracy statute.
  Our subcommittee has shown that EPA has been using taxpayer funds to 
create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots 
lobbying organizations. Most of that material was dishonest propaganda. 
All of this was designed to incite these outside organizations to 
attack Members of Congress who supported regulatory reform in the last 
period of Congress during the 100 days.
  Our evidence suggests a high degree of coordination and cooperation 
between EPA and these outside lobbying groups to convey the agency's 
somewhat hysterical message against any type of real meaningful 
regulatory reform. Sometimes I was reminded in the debate of Chicken 
Little, who cried over and over again the sky is falling, the sky is 
falling, and we all know what our effort is, is to protect the 
environment, but to do it in a better way that does not overregulate 
the American people.
  Well, top EPA officials, many of whom came from various environmental 
advocacy groups engaged in this lobbying, do not seem to understand 
that their responsibility is now one to the American people. It is a 
responsibility that comes with their office, and they can no longer act 
as lobbyists or partisan political operatives. They have a fiduciary 
duty to the American people to use taxpayer money in accordance with 
the law. One of the laws requires that agencies not engage in this type 
of outside lobbying activity, and it is very clear that they have 
intended to orchestrate that sort of a program with these outside 
lobbying groups.
  You know, when the first contacted EPA about this lobbying activity, 
we expected the agency to cooperate with our probe. We assumed that it 
had been something that perhaps had not been reviewed by the highest 
levels in the government. But instead, the top political appointees 
have stonewalled the investigation, they have continued to engage in 
very similar, highly questionable conduct, and Administrator Browner, 
herself, has shown contempt for
 our investigation and for the Congress in her public speeches and 
comments to the press, all the while denying that anyone at EPA could 
possibly have done anything wrong, because they are at EPA acting in 
what they see as the interests of the agency. Yet the very act that you 
have exposed as violating the Privacy Act is part of a troubling 
pattern of evidence that indicates that these top agency officials may 
have violated other Federal statutes and Federal appropriations laws.

  We have evidence that EPA conduct you have been exposing may be part 
of a larger plan to use taxpayer dollars to 
[[Page H4615]] spread disinformation about the Contract with America 
and the reforms that we were trying to pass. In a way, they politicized 
the agency and have taken it beyond its legitimate purpose. This does 
not serve the goal of preserving the environment, but undermines the 
credibility of the agency in the eyes of the American people. I want to 
commend you for your personal courage and welcome your call for an 
investigation into this troubling activity. I very much appreciate the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for yielding to me on this 
important matter of Government ethics, and want to commend him in that 
endeavor.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, not only 
for his efforts in uncovering more and more of the evidence that leads 
inescapably to some of the conclusions you and I and others are coming 
to. The agency is out of control. It is literally engaging in political 
activities it was never designed to engage in and in violation of 
citizens' rights, but also for accepting the challenge as other 
committees have already done, by the way. The INI Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce has already started an investigation 
of this matter. We have enough investigators out there. We might just 
uncover enough to put a stop to some of this stuff.
  I want to thank the gentleman for all of his efforts in regulatory 
reform and for the courage many Members of the House have shared with 
him in passing legislation that the Senate I hope will take up soon and 
pass for us and give it to the President, and hopefully the American 
people and we soon can end some of those abuses as rapidly as we can.
  Mr. McINTOSH. If the gentleman will yield again, I wanted to commend 
the gentleman for also showing this is a bipartisan effort, that the 
standards of high ethical conduct and obeying the law are something 
that Democrats and Republicans want all public servants to obey in this 
country, and I appreciate his courage and effort to point that out, 
that that fiduciary duty and the standards of obeying the law and 
implementing the laws, is something that we can share as Members of 
both political parties in endeavoring to make sure that the Government 
does what is right and what is best for the American people. So I 
commend the gentleman in that effort, and am pleased to be associated 
with the gentleman's effort.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to point out I am not sure 
that everyone in America understands that it does take some real 
courage on the part of this House to take on some of these people. The 
Sierra Club is livid right now. They are livid that we uncovered this.
  I wrote a letter to Mr. Peter Dykster of CNN Headline News 
complaining about the despicable piece of journalism he performed on 
behalf, I think, of the environmental community. And guess what? The 
Sierra Club wrote me a letter today distributed all over the Hill. The 
Sierra Club has received a copy of the letter you sent Mr. Peter 
Dykster of CNN News dated April 13. They got the letter already.
                              {time}  2115

  They are good old buddies. They are working hand and glove. The 
letter establishes again this connection, this connection that weaves 
through some of these liberals in the media who are prepared to do 
anything to propagandize this effort.
  These environmental groups are working with taxpayer funds in some 
cases; in some other cases, in direct collusion with EPA officials that 
do not mind violating the law to help them out to spread their 
disinforma- tion. And the fabric, this weave of collusion 
and interaction is beginning to be exposed.
  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I see what I see, and I read what 
I read. And when an agency of the Government is willing to violate a 
citizen's rights to help a lobby group who then runs to the media with 
something as confidential as that and gets livid when we expose it, I 
think you understand what is going on.
  They will attack. The Sierra Club will attack you, will attack every 
Member of this body who dares to take them on. But it is time we take 
them on. They are wrong. And the agencies of Government are wrong when 
they work with them in order to take away the rights of Americans.
  We are in this fight to win, not for you and I, but for the sake of 
those landowners and Americans who thought they could depend upon the 
Constitution who now need a law to protect them as rapidly as we can 
pass them.
  Mr. McINTOSH. The gentleman is exactly on point. The American people 
expect us to have a higher standard and to have the courage to stand up 
for these groups. They are tired of seeing Government abuse its power, 
and they find it a refreshing change that we have now got Members of 
Congress on both sides of the aisle who are going to make an issue of 
that and stand up for what is right. And the consequences may be 
difficult for us in a political way, but we know in our hearts that we 
are doing what the American people want and what is right.
  I am reminded of another farmer in Indiana, Mr. Bart Dye, who came to 
our subcommittee hearing. We had a field hearing in my hometown, 
Indianapolis, over the recess about the problems of regulations. And he 
summed up his testimony by saying, ``I fought in World War II to 
protect the freedoms that we held dear in our hearts. I didn't expect 
the country to turn on me as I am now entering the twilight days of my 
life.''
  So it is for people like Mr. Dye who we have to stand up for those 
freedoms, and I thank the gentleman being willing to do that.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman so much for his statement.
  Let me assure you, it does not just happen to farmers and to little 
landowners like Mr. Gautreau. They do not care who they pick on.
  I just got a fax tonight from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 
judge in Shreveport, LA. I was in Shreveport last weekend. He told me 
about this and promised to send me a fax on it and authorized me to 
tell the story tonight.
  This is a court of appeals judge who bought 460 acres in Tangipahoa 
Parish across the lake from New Orleans. The tract is about 1\1/4\ 
miles frontage on Louisiana Highway 22 between Ponchatoula and 
Madisonville. It has been owned by the family for 80 years, primarily 
used as timber land. In 1993, he spent $10,000 to map an aerial survey, 
do soil studies, and to submit all those studies to the Corps of 
Engineers.
  On December 14, 1993, the Corps of Engineers, in a
   two-page document signed by, guess who, Dr. Thom Davidson of 
Gautreau-Chaconas fame, Dr. Thom Davidson, which document was 
identified with a survey that was attached, declared over 90 percent of 
the 460 acres nonwet. Only 41 acres out of the 460 was determined to be 
wet, subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers under the 
Clean Water Act. He has that document signed by Thom Davidson.

  Well, spring of 1994 comes along.

       I entered into a venture with a partner ``to test the real 
     estate market'' by beginning a residential development on 58 
     acres of a larger tract. Not one part of the 58 acres was 
     wetland. Absolutely none.

  Here comes the horror part.
  He is away in Europe for the 50th anniversary of D-day in June 1994,

       * * * when several of the bearded wonders of the U.S. Army 
     came out and told my partner to get off his bulldozer and 
     stop his work, as he was violating wetlands. Since then, the 
     Army has reevaluated the 58 acres and has declared over half 
     of it to be wetlands. We have been stopped since last June, 
     11 months ago, while attempting the so-called permitting 
     process. The cost, expenses and damages resulting from this 
     invasion have yet to be determined. If folks in Washington, 
     D.C. do not understand why so many people in this country are 
     angry, then they really do not get it.

  This is not a militia man. This is not an angry man with a gun on 
talk radio. This is a Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge who, 4 
years after the corps wrote him a letter saying the land is not 
wetlands, shows up with a cease and desist order and has now got him 
all tangled up in a wetlands dispute, much like the Gautreaus and the 
Chaconases who, 3 years after the home was built, showed up to say, We 
now think it is a wetland in spite of the fact that we sent you a 
letter earlier saying this property was exempt. Now you are in trouble.
  That is the kind of mess Americans are going through. Farmers, little 

[[Page H4616]] homeowners, court of appeals judges. Who have they 
missed?


                          ____________________