[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2936-H2942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPARING 104TH CONGRESS TO 103D CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of topics we wanted to
talk about tonight, and have with me my colleague from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth], and we may have others joining us. But what we were going to
do is talk about some of the difference between the 103d Congress, the
Congress that was here in 1993 and 1994, and contrast that with the
current Congress that was elected and began to serve in 1995.
If you look back 2 years ago, which was my first term in Washington,
and think about the changes, in 1993 the President had just passed the
largest tax increase in the history of the country and then turned
around and tried to nationalize or socialize medicine.
At the same time, the bureaucracy did not want to get left out of the
action, and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
came up with a proposal that said if you smoke in your own house and
you have a domestic employee, then you must have a smoke ventilator in
your own kitchen.
The EEOC, meanwhile, came out with a ruling that one of the most
dangerous hazards in the workplace today is religious symbols. So if
you were working at the Ford plant and you had a ``Jesus saves'' T-
shirt on, or if you had a necklace that had a Star of David, that was
offensive. EEOC decided it was time to go after those dog-gone
religious symbols in the workplace. That was the kind of thing that we
had going on in the 103d Congress.
Now, contrast that with the 104th Congress. We have a Congress that
has cut staff by one-third, reduced its operating expenses by $67
million, and put Congress and all of its Members under the same
workplace laws as the private sector.
Now instead of debating should we reform welfare, we are debating how
to reform welfare; instead of debating should we balance the budget, we
are debating how to balance the budget. And when the crisis with
Medicare came that was pointed out to us by a bipartisan committee,
this Congress did the responsible thing and acted to protect and
preserve it.
This Congress, Mr. Speaker, is night and day compared to that that
was the 103d Congress. But we have our criticism. A lot of the
criticism comes from the press and its allies over at the White House,
Mr. Clinton. What we were going to do tonight is talk about some of the
criticism.
Education, apparently Republicans do not have children, we do not
care if they get educated or not. Seniors, apparently we all came from
test tubes and none of us have moms or dads and we do not care what
happens to their Social Security or Medicare, according to the
President. Of course, the environment, we want to pave Old Faithful and
level the Rocky Mountains.
But what is really going on with these issues, Mr. Speaker? We want
to talk a little bit about the environment tonight, we want to talk a
little bit about taxes and the middle class, and we will continue
through a series of discussions to talk about some of these other
issues.
I will yield the floor to Mr. Hayworth at this time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Georgia. I am heartened by the
fact that other colleagues from the majority join us tonight to talk
about a variety of topics.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct. There
could not be a greater difference in Government than the difference
that exists between the 103d Congress, held captive by the proponents
of big Government and more and more centralized planning and more and
more taxation and more and more spending, and those of us now in the
majority in the 104th Congress, unafraid to offer America, Mr. Speaker,
a clear, commonsense approach to Government, an approach which really
beckons and harkens back to our founders, an approach typified in the
first act this Congress passed, which simply said this: Members of
Congress should live under the same laws every other American lives
under.
Indeed, as my friend from Georgia pointed out, with a litany of
progress on a variety of issues, there is one inescapable fact that we
confront at this juncture in the second session of the 104th Congress,
and that is the criticism, the carping, the complaining, of liberals,
both in this city and nationwide, of the powerful special interests who
have as their mission in life the maintenance of the welfare state, the
maintenance and enhancement and growth of centralized planning; those
disciples of big Government who now would criticize the new commerce in
this new majority and paint our agenda, indeed, our contract for
America, as somehow being extreme.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to point to this simple fact: The only thing
extreme about the agenda of the new majority is the fact that it makes
extremely good sense.
I take, for example, the comments of my friend from Georgia, who
talked about the fact that in the wake of the 1992 election the
incoming President, as one of his first acts, chose to proposed and
this Chamber approved by one vote the largest tax increase in American
history. Emboldened by that victory, our friend at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue worked in secret to devise a plan of government,
that is to say, socialized medicine.
The American people said ``Enough,'' and in November 1994 gave this
new Congress a mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I can vouch as one who watched with interest my
colleague from Georgia and my other colleagues here who served in the
103d Congress and served valiantly to point out the absurdity of the
extremism of those who always endorse the liberal welfare state, I saw
with my eyes their valiant efforts.
{time} 2115
But more importantly, through the votes of the good people of the
United States of America with a new majority, we have moved to do
simple things, ironically, the same things that a candidate for the
Presidency, who was ultimately elected in 1992, talked about. My friend
from Georgia remembers this well. Remember the campaign rhetoric: I
will balance the budget in 5 years?
Mr. KINGSTON. Larry King Live, June 4, 1992.
Mr. HAYWORTH. My friend from Georgia offers the attribution. And if
he would continue to yield, we would know that the President has had to
be persuaded by Members of his own party to offer a phantom budget that
would come into balance in 7 years, and using a personal analogy that I
am sure my friend from Georgia can appreciate,
[[Page H2937]]
since he is a physical fitness buff, the budget that the gentleman at
the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue now advocates to try and bring our
budget into balance would be akin to me saying I need to go on a diet.
I think we can all acknowledge that fact. I think I am going to lose 50
pounds over the next 2 months, but I am going to lose 2 of those pounds
in several weeks' time, and I will save the 48 remaining pounds for the
final 2 days of the diet. It just does not work.
Theoretically, you can write down numbers on a sheet of paper, but
what this new majority has offered is a clear, commonsense plan to
bring this budget into balance in 7 years, which this President vetoed;
a clear, commonsense plan to reform welfare as we know it, which this
President vetoed; and now yielding to my friend from Georgia, I would
gladly listen to his points.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important really when we do
have a dialog to be factual about it. We have been accused of cutting
student loans, and yet our budget calls for increasing student loans
from $24 to $36 billion. We have been accused of cutting Medicaid, and
yet our budget calls for an increase from $89 to $124 billion. Of
course, we have been accused of cutting Medicare, but our budget goes
from $180 billion to $290 billion. I think it is important that when we
talk about this that we divide the facts from the rhetoric.
Now, one of the things that we have been trying to do with our
reforms is to balance things, and I know our friend from Michigan [Mr.
Ehlers] is here, and we wanted to talk about yes, there are things we
are trying to fix, but we are not trying to destroy things,
specifically in the environment. I do a lot of camping, and I plan to
continue to do a lot of camping. I have 4 children, and my 12-year-old
daughter last year started hunting with me. My 10-year-old son is
coming along, and I want that environment there for them. I want there
to be plenty of species out there. I want the endangered species to be
protected. I want private property rights to be protected as well.
Mr. Speaker, I really get offended when the President accuses us of
trying to gut environmental legislation when the Clean Water Act, the
Endangered Species Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency all
were created in the early 1970's under a Republican administration.
Let me yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman yielding
me time, and I would like to take a few moments to talk about some
Republican ideas on the environment.
As the gentleman correctly pointed out, we have been criticized
severely over the past 2 years for some of the actions taken and some
of the votes that were held, but I would like to discuss from my
perspective, first of all, as a scientist. I am sure the gentleman is
aware of my scientific background. Perhaps not all of my colleagues
are. But I would just simply mention I have a doctorate in nuclear
physics, and I worked in the field for a number of years, both in
research and teaching, before I entered the political arena. That does
not make me an environmentalist or an ecologist automatically, but it
at least indicates that I have the ability to establish fact from
fiction when dealing with environmental issues.
Mr. Speaker, back in 1968, I first became concerned about the
environment, and I noticed a little notice in the newspaper in Grand
Rapids, MI, my hometown, that there was going to be a meeting to
discuss environmental issues. I went to that meeting. There were a
group of citizens concerned about some pollution that was taking place
at that time in various areas of the State, and we formed an
organization called the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, and
I served as a charter member of that and I have also served on the
board.
That whetted my interest in what was happening to the environment,
and I had a good deal of interest in government but had never thought
of running for office. But when our county developed a severe landfill
problem and we had the possibility of raw garbage piling up in the
streets, I decided to run for the county commission, and I used that as
a means to straighten out the solid-waste situation in my county. It
took the work of a lot of other people, too. I do not want to claim the
credit for it. But it shows what a citizen activist who is concerned
about the environment can do.
The interesting thing is, when I was elected to office and came up
with some solutions, I soon lost many of my environmental friends who
thought I was going to be a total purist and save the world. The
gentleman knows as well as I, from working on issues here, there are
many sides to issues and you have to use a reasonable, logical
approach. When you are faced with mounds of garbage coming in the gate
and the threat of it piling up on the sidewalks, you have to make some
tough choices.
But over a period of time, we managed to totally revamp the solid
waste disposal system. In fact, I suggested renaming it the solid waste
storage system, because the gentleman knows as well as I that if you
put it in the landfill, you have not disposed of it; you have simply
stored it, and it is still there to create problems in the future. But
in any event, we did resolve the environmental issues, and I will not
go into all the details of that.
Later I moved on to the State senate. I was made chairman of the
Environmental Affairs and Natural Resources Committee, and in the
course of several years, with the help of John Engler, who was senate
majority leader at that time, now the Governor of the State of
Michigan, we got landmark legislation passed and probably had more
environmental legislation passed in those 4 years than at any time in
the history of the State of Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, I am giving this not to brag about my accomplishments
but simply to point out that those people who think the environment is
a Democrat issue and not a Republican issue are sorely mistaken. We
have different approaches perhaps, but I believe that we can accomplish
a great deal in the end on the environment by working together.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to emphasize what the gentleman is saying by
pointing out that President Theodore Roosevelt started the National
Park System, and, of course, he was a great Republican at the time.
Mr. EHLERS. He was a great Republican, and also started in some ways
the political meaning of the term conservationist. I always love to
point out to my friends that the root word for conservation is the same
as the root word for conservative and that any true conservative should
be an environmentalist, because it is important for all of us to
conserve what we have for the advantage of future generations.
During my time in the political arena and working on environmental
issues, I have learned some lessons which I just want to share with my
colleagues here. First of all, the environment is extremely important.
I can perhaps draw an analogy to something that we discuss here an
awful lot: The balanced budget. We approach this, as Republicans, from
the standpoint that we want to protect this economy, this Nation for
our children and grandchildren. It is simply not right for us to
continue to live in debt and expect our children and grandchildren to
pay that debt. We want to leave them a promising future and not a huge
debt. Well, that is also true of the environment. That is one of the
reasons I am a confirmed environmentalist .
It is absolutely wrong for us to leave a polluted country to our
children and grandchildren and to other future generations. We have to
give them the same resource opportunities that we inherited from our
ancestors. We have to give them the same clean environment that we have
inherited from those who came before us. That is why the environment is
very important to me. I want my children and grandchildren and their
grandchildren to inherit a clean country, a clean planet, and to be
able to have enough resources to use and enjoy this planet.
Mr. Speaker, another lesson I have learned is that energy, energy and
energy use, are probably the single-most important component of the
environment. Not everyone realizes this. But once you begin analyzing
the sources of pollution, where it comes from, a lot of it is from
improper use of energy or inefficient use of energy, and that is
something this Congress has to spend
[[Page H2938]]
more time and energy on, just recognizing the importance of energy and
working on the efficient use of energy.
Now, let me make it clear, I am not here talking about energy
conservation. Some people confuse those. Somehow they think if they are
freezing in the dark, they are helping the environment. Well, that may
be true, but it certainly is an uncomfortable way to save the
environment. What I am talking about is simple, common-sense efficiency
of use of energy which can result in less pollution and less cost and a
better environment. Everyone wins in that situation.
Another lesson I have learned is that we have to work together on the
environment. This is not a partisan issue. I happen to believe that the
current Congress is far too polarized on many issues and sometimes
polarized on the environment. But they should not be. The Congress
should recognize this is a universal problem. The public certainly
recognizes. Eighty percent of them favor a clean environment, and we
should work together on this issue and recognize it is not partisan but
it is important.
As a scientist, I have also learned that correct science is
essential. You cannot ignore science and say there is no problem. You
also should not manipulate science to prove your point of view, if it
happens to be wrong. The facts are the facts, and you have to deal with
it.
But another issue that arises when you are dealing with environmental
issues is what I call trans-scientific issues, issues that do not have
a ready scientific response because the problems are so immensely
complicated, and there we simply have to use our best judgment in
trying to come up with a workable solution.
Something else that has developed in science is tremendous
improvements in detection of toxic materials or other sorts. But out of
that comes a big mistake very frequently. A good example is the Delaney
clause, which was passed years ago, said no substance used for human
consumption can have any carcinogenic or mutagenic element in it at
all. Well, as our detection methods got so much better, and we can now
detect one part in a quadrillion, that law no longer makes any sense.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield on that, I think that that
is a real important idea or concept.
How it has been explained to me is that if you take, say, a wading
pool that kids are in, not a swimming pool but a wading pool, the
little blue, pink plastic kind, and you pour a gallon of pesticide in
there, then back in the 1930s, that is what they detect. But today, if
you take an eyedropper and into mom and dad's big swimming pool, 34,000
gallons, and you put a little drop of the pesticide in that pool, today
we could detect it. Yet in many, many cases, that trace of pesticide is
negligible, it is noncarcinogenic, it will not hurt anybody. But
because our technology is so advanced, we can detect it, and yet our
laws have not kept up with that.
That is what revamping the Delaney clause is all about, and it is so
important because there are so many fertilizers that have been taken
off the market because of this red tape interpretation of the Delaney
clause, and yet other countries are still using those pesticides. So it
is affecting us already, and we do need to resolve the issue, again, in
a balanced way, protecting the consumer above everything else, but also
utilizing the technology for our advantage and not against it.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that comment, because
that is precisely what has happened. I am certainly not arguing for
putting toxic materials in food or using the wrong fertilizers or
anything like that. I am simply saying that our laws have to keep up
with scientific changes, and if you demand a zero tolerance, as we did
originally with the Delaney clause, it is a mistake, because there is
no such thing in this life as zero risk.
Mr. Speaker, that leads to my next point, and that is, we have to
learn as a nation to prioritize, to decide what is good and what is
bad, and recognize, everyone has to recognize that there are certain
risks to every part of life. For example, it is commonly assumed by
many that natural is good. Something that is natural is good. Something
that is artificial is bad. That is not necessarily true. For example,
peanut butter. Perhaps I should not mention this in the hearing of
those who are from Georgia. But peanut butter is a fairly carcinogenic
material, and the lab tests have shown that. And if we truly enforce
the Delaney clause, we would probably have to ban peanut butter.
Mr. KINGSTON. I do want to ask how you people in Michigan consume
peanut butter. I would like to know more about that.
Mr. EHLERS. Well, in fact, everyone consumes peanut butter, and that
is why it has not been banned. It is a food staple for so many people.
I am simply pointing out that what we have to do is analyze the risks
in every situation and prioritize the risks. There is a great deal of
concern, of course, in our Nation about toxic waste, but yet, if you
analyze in a hard-headed manner what really are the environmental risks
we have today, what is the highest environmental risk, you are likely
to find that there are many things other than improper disposal of
waste that are higher up on the list.
{time} 2130
For example, urban sprawl with its destruction of habitat, and
destruction of habitat of course is key in the endangerment of species,
and that leads to something that my colleague from Maryland sitting
here is an expert on, the Endangered Species Act. These are all very,
very complex issues. We have to look at all aspects of these and
recognize precisely what the problems are, and what the dangers are,
and what this leads to, as my final point in this list before I
summarize, and that is what we need is common sense regulation. That is
something I have strived for throughout my legislative career.
It is very easy to adopt what is called the command and control
approach where you simply say something is bad, let us regulate it out
of existence. If you do that without looking at the benefits and the
costs, you can go down a very dangerous path, dangerous both in terms
of health and our economy.
What we, what I, typically did in the Michigan Senate, when we
encountered a problem, I would get representatives gathered. I would
get scientists together, environmentalists, industrialists, everyone
possible, get a representative group together, sit down in a room and
pound it out, week, after week, after week, educate each other about
the problem and come up with a solution.
Mr. Speaker, frankly, that is what I believe that we have to have the
Congress doing as well. That really results in good common sense
regulation which gives the maximum return on laws and the maximum
return on the investment of time and energy as well as money.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I wanted to illustrate
that on a true case that happened in Riverside, CA, where the residents
in a neighborhood were not allowed to dig fire trenches because it
would endanger kangaroo rat habitat. And so fire breaks were not dug,
and a fire came. Thirty homes were destroyed, but, in addition to that,
over 20,000 acres of kangaroo rat habitat was destroyed.
Clearly, using what you are saying, common sense approach, this
certainly does not benefit the home owners, but it also defeated the
whole objective, which was to protect the rat.
So we can clearly, without endangering the animal, we can clearly
have more flexibility of the law and get away from the command and
control which leaves out common sense.
Mr. EHLERS. Let me give an example, too, that occurred in Michigan.
Years ago it was discovered that the Kirtland's warbler in Michigan
was an endangered animal. Everyone loved the Kirtland's warbler, a
wonderful bird, beautiful song. It was endangered because of some very
peculiar mating habits. This bird is very selective about its habitat
for mating. It would only mate in jack pine trees which were less than
6 feet tall. As the forest grew, the jack pine were too tall, and the
birds would not mate. So they were becoming extinct.
The initial approach suggested setting aside vast acreages so that
there be at any given time enough jack pine available so that the birds
would nest and proliferate. In fact, a different approach was
developed, and that was to
[[Page H2939]]
use smaller acreage and provide for selective cuttings of timber in
such a fashion that there is always ample jack pine of the appropriate
height.
The Kirtland's warbler has flourished. It is no longer endangered. It
has become a major tourist attraction in that area. So we find that we
have improved the habitat for the Kirtland's warbler. It has benefited
the community as well, and it is a good example of meeting the needs of
the environment, meeting the needs of the endangered species, and yet
not with any undue takings, or anything of that sort.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I mean by commonsense regulation. There are
ways of handling most of these problems if we simply take the time to
address them properly and study them thoroughly, use scientific
evidence, and do not get all wrapped up in rhetoric, or taking sides,
or polarizing the issue.
Now this will not be true in every case, but it is true in many
cases. Sometimes we will have really tough issues, but if we remember
our environmental principles of saying the environment is very
important, we have to find a solution, let us find the best possible
solution, I think it will serve all of us well.
Well, I have given this as an example of a Republican approach to the
environment, and I think it is the approach that we have to take here,
that we have to follow, get away from some of our polarization.
To summarize, I would make a few key points. First of all, we must
protect the environment; we have no choice about that; for the
betterment of our planet and for the benefit of our children,
grandchildren and future generations. We must do it scientifically. We
cannot do it haphazardly. We have to analyze the risks as best we can
and not simply say, ``Oh, that is a terrible danger, let us address
that and ignore something over here that might be even worse.''
We must do it in priority order. We have to develop a method of
prioritizing the demands, the problems in the environment, so we are
putting our money where it makes sense, and we must use common sense in
doing it.
But above all, we must do it for our children, our grandchildren and
for any future generations. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
We have also been joined by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Gilchrest] who wanted to comment on a couple of points as well.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to just
say a few things.
Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about a number of issues, one of
which is policy relating to environmental issues. The gentleman from
Michigan, the gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from Georgia, I
think, all discussed the direction that we need to move in. The
gentleman from Michigan said we need to protect the environment. There
is no one in this room that wants to dirty the air, and I do not think
there is anybody in this room that says the water is too clean, and I
do not think there is anybody in this room that wants to do away with
species that we are able to enjoy in the wild so that in years to come
they will become extinct.
But there is a way that we can go about doing this in a fundamental
manner that will bring more people into the process, and in the long
run and in the short run, I believe, we will be more successful.
A hundred years from now, and I am sure that there are people out
there listening, Mr. Speaker, that knew people that were alive in 1896.
And we will know people that will know people in 2096. I am not sure
any of us will know people that are alive in 2096, but our great
grandchildren, perhaps our grandchildren, will know people that will be
alive in the year 2096. So a hundred-year time span is not very long.
And for us to protect the resources that we have right now, I think, is
crucially important so that future generations will be able to enjoy
the blessings that we have inherited.
Now in order to do that I do not think you can do that from a
centralized authority like the Federal Government. We have been
accumulating more and more responsibility with the States and the local
governments and even private citizens. So, we create environmental
legislation which is important for a lot of reasons.
For example, about 40 percent of the pollution problem in the
Chesapeake Bay, where I come from, the Chesapeake Bay watershed; I live
on the eastern shore of Maryland; about 40 percent of the problem in
the Chesapeake Bay is air deposition. That means air pollution, and
there is very little you can do about that, and about 60 percent of
that air pollution which pollutes the Chesapeake Bay from the air is
from automobiles.
We are increasing the number of cars every year; we are increasing
the number of people that live in the watershed every year. So we have
to begin to find solutions to problems that are difficult to
solve because very often, if not always, the problems are as a result
of increased population.
The way to do that, I think, is to begin cooperating and consulting
with these environmental pieces of legislation, with the State
government, with the local government and private citizens developing
policies that can actually work. Future generations will not care who
cleaned up the pollution, or even who polluted. The fact is they are
going to live with what we do.
One other comment about clean air and clean water. Very often the
Republicans are tagged with causing gridlock in Washington, with
causing partisan politics in Washington, especially when it relates to
environmental issues. I would just like to send this message, and that
is gridlock. Arguments in Washington are not bad. You do not see the
North Koreans arguing. You do not see gridlock in Cuba. What you see
here in Washington is an argument about the best way that America
should move forward. These arguments are actually bringing out more
information. In fact, I would say that the people with the most
credibility in Washington right now are not the ones with long years
behind them. They are not the powerful committee chairmen that might
have been elected in the 1950's. We do not have that anymore.
Mr. Speaker, the people with the most power in Washington right now
are the ones with credibility, and people with credibility are people
with information. If we can begin to share information from Member to
Member and develop legislation so that we can share responsibility,
cooperate with the States, have consultations to do the best that we
can with environmental legislation, then I think we are going to move
forward to protect the environment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point,
first of all, I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Maryland.
We serve together on the Committee on Resources. It is no secret that
we may not agree on every single jot and tittle with reference to
policy.
Yet at the same time I am heartened by the fact that the gentleman
from Maryland, as well as my friend from Michigan and my friend from
Georgia, all recognize this central theme, that it is not
centralization of power or a one-size-fits-all philosophy that oft
times is outdated with reference to new technologies that develop, but,
instead, the realization that there must be a spirit of conciliation, a
spirit of cooperation and the notion that is really quite common
sensical when you think about it, the acknowledgment that Phoenix is
not the same as Philadelphia, that Monroe, LA, may not be the same as
Grand Rapids, MI, that Savannah, GA, may not be the same as St. Louis,
MO. There are different issues that confront us all.
So in that spirit, even while there may be some disagreements on how
we get to a cleaner environment, how we recapture for the American
people the true spirit of conservation, let us start with that premise,
and also what the gentleman from Michigan talked about, and that is the
sense of balance that must be there, preservation of the environment, a
true spirit of conservation, and at the same time a preservation, if
you will, of the fragile rural economies this Nation has; for example,
in the Sixth District of Arizona.
So it is a challenge. It is not easy to face up to many of these
questions, although common sense will rule the day, I believe, and we
will ultimately come to some agreements. But let us also categorically
reject even amidst the gridlock that my friend from Maryland talked
about this need on the part
[[Page H2940]]
of some within this body and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to
try and demonize those who will take another approach, indeed along the
same lines of the school lunch debate, really the school lunch scare,
and with reference to the mediscare debate. I have yet to see starving
children in the streets or the elderly thrown in the streets. And by
the same token, I do not believe the vast majority of Americans are
turning on their taps and drinking sludge.
So let us articulate up front that, while there may be some slight
differences in approaches, the bottom line remains true for members of
the new majority. We want to find constructive, common sense solutions
that preserve the environment, that preserve the economy and do exactly
what the gentleman from Maryland talks about, offers an environment to
generations yet unborn that is clean and that may be used, not only for
emotional well-being, but for economic well-being for that is the
challenge we face in the last decade of the 20th century.
So I am heartened by my friend's remarks and look forward to working
with him, even acknowledging some differences along the way. I yield to
my friend from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. What is important though is we bring our laws up with
our technology and bring our laws up with other levels of government to
realize that when the Environmental Protection Agency started in the
very early 1970's, it was just about the only and certainly the premier
environmental protection agency in the country. Today in Georgia, in
Maryland, in Michigan, and Arizona you have narrow groups. You have
your own Environmental Protection Agency, which probably is about 10,
15 years old at this point.
{time} 2145
Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to speak to the Association of State
Environmental Protection Divisions a couple of months ago. I was a
little bit worried because I was afraid that, well, I do not know if I
am walking into a lion's den or not. They said, ``We are ready. We can
handly this. We can probably do a better job of attacking pollution
cleanup because we are closer to the sites, we can work with turning,
or the State legislative, we can get it turned around. Do not run from
it, but do not get in our way, either.'' I think that is important.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would just
like to comment on this little discussion, and especially commend the
gentleman from Marylandy [Mr. Gilchrest], who is, I believe, without
doubt, the wetlands expert of the Congress. He knows a great deal about
it, and has made some very important contributions to that.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the
founding of the West Michigan Environmental Council. That group plus
another group were instrumental in making Michigan the leader in
writing State laws, in many cases before any other State or the Federal
Government had. We wrote a wetlands law in Michigan over two decades
ago. Michigan still is the only State that has been delegated authority
by the EPA to administer its own wetlands law, and is not subject to
Federal wetlands law.
It has always puzzled me why other States have not done that because,
precisely as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, each State is
often better able to judge the situation within their State. Michigan
is a very wet State. We are surrounded by Great Lakes, we have many
inland lakes, we have many wetlands, and we have developed a wetlands
law that works very well. I do not want to imply that it is without
trouble and without dispute, but I can tell the Members from my
experience in working with that and slogging through wetlands and
working with the laws and working with the people, we managed to work
things out.
Mr. Speaker, I was astounded when I came to Washington and discovered
the antagonism toward the EPA in most parts of this country with regard
to wetlands. I think part of it is, as the gentleman from Arizona
mentioned, we have tried to pass one-size-fits-all legislation, and
certainly the wetlands requirements in South Dakota and Arizona are
different from those in Michigan and in Maryland. I think it is
important for us to recognize that. It is also important for the States
to take on that responsibility, as Michigan has done in passing its own
wetlands law.
Similarly with takings laws, that is a real legal morass, and I
regret the takings legislation that passed this body earlier this year,
because I think, again, it was an attempt to be a one-size-fits-all,
and it certainly did not fit my State. We have struggled with that for
years with the wetlands law, with the Sand Dune Protection Act. We have
come to a reasonable working arrangement on that, and keep working on
trying to improve it.
Again, realize that the real objective is to protect the environment
and work in a common-sense fashion that works, that gets the job done.
When you were talking about clean water and clean air a moment ago, I
was reminded, when I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1966, the
Grand River, which was a beautiful river flowing right through
downtown, was filthy. No one would swim in it. No one boated on it. No
one would think of catching fish from it. Now the river is clean enough
so it has become a major fishing attraction. People boat on the river,
and some even dare to swim in the river.
So we have made considerable progress in the past couple of decades,
and I think it is a tribute to the progress we have made. We should
never forget that. We have cleaned up most of the biological pollutants
in the water and in the air. Now we are working on the chemical
pollutants. It is a much tougher problem and much more scientific in
nature. We have to, as I said earlier, use good science to do that.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman points out, though, the
need for honesty and integrity in the debate is so important. We have a
Superfund bill we have been trying to get reauthorized now for 2 years,
and while we are speaking, only about five of the national priority
sites get cleaned up each year. Only 12 percent of the polluted
national prioritized sites have been cleaned up, after 15 years and $25
billion of Superfund law. It is broken. Let us fix it. There is going
to be a little bit of disagreement between the manufacturers in the
private sector and the environmental community, but I would suspect
there is still 75 percent or 80 percent of the issue that could be
moved forward right now.
Mr. Speaker, I am very frustrated by the fact that in Washington, we
always have to have this debate from both sides of any issue, ``The sky
is falling,'' and the other side wants to accelerate the fall, join me
in this fight. It is very difficult in that kind of atmosphere to have
an honest debate.
I know the gentleman from Maryland has been in the very center of
some of these things.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is correct
about the Superfund situation. I think this Congress has begun the
process of resolving the vast differences in that complex piece of
legislation so we can have as our priority spending the money on
cleanup costs rather than litigation costs.
I would like to mention just one thing to the gentleman from
Michigan. I know Michigan has assumed the enforcement of the Federal
wetlands regulations, and Maryland is about to do the same thing. I
would like to make a comment on wetlands, the Endangered Species Act,
and these other pieces of environmental legislation which are sometimes
very emotionally discussed.
In the State of Maryland, as a result of the Chesapeake Bay improving
and having clean water, much of that is attributed to wetlands
filtering out a good deal of the nitrogen that comes in as a result of
farming, or filters out a variety of other pollutants that get into the
groundwater and spawning areas for fish, but wetlands is key to the
economic boom in Maryland. There is about $2 billion worth of tourism,
commercial fishing, recreational fishing, hunting, boating that comes
to the State of Maryland as a result of the type of environment we
have, so wetlands regulations help us to manage our resources.
The Endangered Species Act, which in the State of Maryland is
actually stricter than the Federal Endangered Species Act, that might
cause some alarm for some people, but for the State of Maryland, it
assumes that our rural areas, through certain management tools on the
Federal, State, and
[[Page H2941]]
local level, when we work in a pretty cooperative consulting fashion,
ensures that our number one industry, or number one and number two
industries in the State of Maryland are fishing, tourism, and
agriculture. To save these particular industries, we need to work
together and now apart.
We do need to recognize the differences in a regional way, but people
in Louisiana want clean water, as the people in Maryland want clean
water, so it is the consulting process. It is getting involved from all
the different levels, including elected officials getting involved in
the consulting process.
I just want to close with this one point, Mr. Speaker. I read
recently a book from a Montana mayor, and I can't remember his name,
the mayor of Missoula, Montana, wrote a book about community and place,
and how we can reconcile the difference, especially that seem to become
political differences. The essence of the book, without going into it,
and I recommend the book to people to read, it is called ``Community
and the Politics of Place,'' I think that is the name of it. But the
essence of the book is, he said that America used to be a frontier.
People used to be able to go places if they did not like where they
were. if they had religious differences or had any kind of quarrel or
wanted to seek adventure, they could go to the frontier that seemed
endless. Now America does not really have a frontier. America is
filling up with people, and we are a prosperous Nation, so the next
frontier will be the frontier that is based on our ability to consult,
to cooperate, to use our intellectual skills to manage the limited
resources that we have so that they will still exists for future
generations. We cannot do that and argue.
My son told me a couple of years ago when he was in high school, when
he sort of was getting ready to look at the world, he said the world to
him seemed like two people in a big truck driving down the highway at
90 miles an hour, and the highway ended at a huge precipice, a 10,000-
foot drop, and the people were not only not paying attention to where
they were going, they were arguing.
So if we are going to be legislators that are going to deal with the
problem of the Nation, we have to, together, set the example so we can
cooperate here and disseminate that sense of policy to the rest of the
country.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
simply wanted to comment that I agree wholeheartedly with that. I
think, getting back to the theme of what we have been talking about, we
are simply trying to demonstrate that we are Republicans are trying to
develop a responsible approach to the environment here.
I appreciate the comments that have been made. I thank the gentleman
from Maryland especially for his views on wetlands, and obviously, it
is very similar to Michigan. There is just one minor correction, by the
way. Michigan has its own wetlands law, whereas Maryland and New Jersey
will administer the Federal wetlands law.
It was interesting, when I was in office there I heard a lot of
complaints about the wetland law, and one legislator proposed repealing
the Michigan wetland law. The two groups that argued the most against
that were the sportsmen, who think the wetlands law is wonderful,
because Michigan has great hunting and fishing and so forth, and
business. They said, ``We know this law. It works for Michigan. We do
not want to be under the Federal law.'' That shows how each State can
design the law that accomplishes the goals better than we can with a
one-size-fits-all approach from Washington.
I think we have to set a minimum standard, but encourage the States
to go beyond that. As Republicans who are talking about devolution of
power, of letting the people in the communities have a say, I think
this fits in beautifully with that.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate
the gentleman making this point, and I simply want to make this point
that I think it transcends almost every debate we have here, and it is
a philosophical point of view that I think rings true with the majority
of the American people.
As you relate to us the experiences of Michigan, as our colleague
from Maryland relates the experiences in his State, certainly none
among us would argue that at certain time in our history, the Federal
Government has played a genuinely worthwhile role in serving as a
catalyst to deal with some dramatic issues, but history does not occur
in a vacuum.
Therefore, the challenge for us at this juncture in our history is to
ask this question: Who do we trust? Do we trust the American people, do
we trust local officials, elected by the people close to home,
officials elected to State government, the State agencies that have
grown up in the last 25 years to confront these problems, or do we
always and forever turn these problems over to Washington bureaucrats
to offer a Washington solution which may fit Washington, DC, but which
might not fit Washington State? that is the essence of the debate that
we have on a variety of topics.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan for drawing that distinction yet
again when it comes to environmental legislation, the true meaning of
conservation, and what it will mean to protect and preserve the
environment as we move into the next century.
Mr. EHLERS. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, we need both. Take clean
air, for example. We have to have a Federal law, because the transport
across distances is so huge, but we also need local law to regulate how
this is applied locally, and do it in a commonsense fashion. Only with
everyone working together are we truly going to achieve a clean
environment.
the urgent need for meaningful tax reform
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to touch base on the tax
situation, with April 15 approaching quickly. I will yield to the
gentleman from Arizona on this, but I want to start off with a couple
of fun facts, first, about out tax system, because if you are like many
of your American friends this last week or two, you took time filling
out your tax form.
On an average, it takes 12 hours for you and your family to fill out
your tax forms to the degree that you can, and then you take it to your
accountant, and pay anywhere from $150 to $700 or $800, depending on
where you are and how much you own and so forth. If you are a small
business, it takes you 22 hours.
Here is a statistic that I really like, Mr. Speaker. The IRS has 480
tax forms, and 280 of them are forms that tell you how to fill out the
other forms. That is absolutely absurd. The West Publishing Co., one of
the official publishers of the Federal Tax Code, published the 1994 Tax
Code in two volumes. Volume 1 contains sections 1 through 1,000, and it
is printed in 1,168 pages. Volume 2 is page 1,500--1,500. We have a
1,564-page Tax Code, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely absurd. The need for
tax reform is urgent, it is great, it is right now. It is appropriate
to look at while we are trying to balance the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
{time} 2200
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend the gentleman from Georgia.
In this Chamber where it is oft decried, the level of verbosity that
often emanates within this Chamber, you have not seen words, Mr.
Speaker, until you take a look at the Tax Code. The gentleman from
Georgia talked about it. By wording, the Tax Code as it exists today
consists of 555 million words, 555 million words in the last 10 years.
In the wake of tax reform of a decade ago there have been 4,000
changes, resulting in the verbiage piling up.
Mr. Speaker, if you think you are paying by the word, that is
certainly the case. Because in the wake of our last tax increase, the
largest tax increase in American history, the President of the United
States, who talks about tax breaks for the middle-class, offered a tax
increase so regressive that with the retroactivity attached to it,
people who had passed away still owed more from beyond the grave due to
retroactivity.
It is the height of absurdity when the American family in 1948, an
average family of four, surrendered about 3 percent of its income in
taxes to the Federal Government, to where last year the average
American family of four surrendered virtually one quarter of its income
in taxes to the Federal government. That affects everyone.
[[Page H2942]]
Mr. Speaker, we need to make a change. We have taken a look at
priorities and we see that clearly, in the wake of these expenditures,
Washington's priorities have totally gotten out of whack.
Mr. KINGSTON. What is so important is that the average family in the
1950's paid 3 percent and today pays 24 percent in Federal income
taxes. When you add in the other taxes, State and local taxes, the
average middle-class family pays about 25-percent taxes.
I had an opportunity to talk to a driver with UPS, United Parcel
Service, in my district. He said, ``My wife works. She teaches school
and has a good job, and I get a lot of overtime driving this truck. We
have got three kids, and at the end of the month we do not have
anything because it goes into washers and dryers and taxes and
regulations and so forth.''
That is the story of the middle-class American family today. All they
are doing is working for the government. Then we turn around and make
them fill out a tax form that is absurd, which they cannot do.
Mr. Speaker, you are on the Committee on Ways and Means. I bet you
most Members of Congress cannot even fill out their own tax form. I
believe that is real important. If we cannot do it, we who are setting
the law, what do we expect of the American people?
Mr. HAYWORTH. If my friend would yield, there is something
fundamentally wrong when the average American family pays more in taxes
than on food, shelter and clothing combined. There is something wrong
when Washington sends its resources to pay for 111,000 IRS employees,
and yet can only have 6,700 DEA employees and only 5,900 border patrol
employees.
What does that say to the American people? The Washington bureaucrats
are saying, ``Oh, we do not have time to staunch the flow of illegal
drugs. We do not have time to guard the borders, though that is one of
the prerogatives of the Federal Government as mandated in the
constitution. But we do have time to audit you, Mr. and Ms. America. We
do have time to cast aspersions on your honesty. We do have time to try
and find our way into your pocketbook again and again and again and
again.''
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing ignoble or dishonorable about hard-
working American taxpayers hanging onto more of their hard-earned money
and sending less here to Washington, DC. Indeed, in the days to come
once again, I know my friend Georgia disagrees with this notion, we
extend our hand in cooperation to the minority. We extend our hand in
cooperation to the President of the United States.
We have talked the talk for too long. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is time
for us to walk the walk. We voted that way in this Chamber. We hope
that those who would give lip service to these ideals would join with
us and get about the business of governing. The American people deserve
no less.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have worked to repeal the 1993 Clinton tax increase
on Social Security recipients. We have worked to increase the earnings
limitations for American seniors. We have worked to increase the estate
tax threshold from $600,000 to $750,000, and we have worked to end the
marriage tax penalty and the capital gains tax, and the President
vetoed that. Along with that, he vetoed a $500 per child tax credit for
middle-class families.
Right now in America households all over this land, from Maine to
Miami to California, you can reach in your pocket and say here is $500
that was a dividend for my work this year, but it was vetoed by this
President of the United States.
We are not going to stop, Mr. Speaker, and talking about taxes is
going to take a lot more time. We have with us the gentleman from
California who wants to talk about another waste of manpower and money,
and that is illegal immigration, so I want to yield to him.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to echo my colleagues'
comments. My wife runs our family business which happens to be an
income tax business. I heard a lot of talk in 1993 that the Clinton tax
increase was only going to be a tax on the rich and the seniors who
were wealthy. Well, I do not think the Members of the House really
realized what they were doing. I will say this, and I need to say this
so that I can go home to my bride in California this weekend.
The fact is that she showed me one individual and talked to one
individual who was a classic example of the so-called tax on the rich.
This person made less than $14,000 a year, but because he happened to
be a Latino who had very strong religious beliefs, he did not divorce
his wife. He was married and filing separate. Eighty-five percent of
his Social Security is being taxed.
You remember in 1993 they told those of my colleagues who were here,
this is only a tax on the wealthy Social Security recipients; it is not
on the poor. Well, this man would like to ask: Would somebody in
Congress tell him how rich he is?
I think that that is one issue that is not discussed enough and we
need to start bringing it up. As somebody who is involved in doing tax
returns for the working class in my community in San Diego, Mr.
Speaker, I hope to bring up more of those items, talking with the
constituents who are being taxed by this Congress under the guise of
taxing the rich, when it is the working class that is getting harmed by
this unfair and unjust legislation.
Mr. Speaker, another item that is unfair and unjust is that we have
been trying to address this last week the fact that this Government of
the United States has in the past rewarded people for coming across the
border and breaking our immigration laws and then getting welfare, free
education and free medicine, to the point where it is costing the State
of California immense amounts of revenue, and the Federal Government
has been walking away from this expense. The people in States across
this country are paying this expense because the Federal Government has
ignored it.
Mr. Speaker, with the passage of H.R. 2202, Mr. Smith's bill, we are
finally now seeing this Congress recognizing its responsibility under
the constitution to address the fact of illegal immigration. But there
is one part of the illegal immigration issue, Mr. Speaker, that has not
been addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I will just ask that we all consider the fact that
giving automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens is a problem
we need to address. My bill, H.R. 1363, will address that, and we hope
to work on that in the very near future.
____________________